(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"

X13 



i^?^5 



h. c. oon.^ib^'JS 



JUM 



^lartlj (Karnlma (Eaurts 



- , 



- 



1984-85 




JVnmral Report 

of toe 

JUmtmtgiraitOe Office of ttje Courts 



The Cover: The Camden County Courthouse in Camden, North Carolina, a small Greek 
Revival brick building with the main floor above a high raised basement, was completed 
in 1 847. The main facade is dominated by a tetra-style portico extending over the central 
entrance and flanking bays and supported by heavy Doric columns of molded brick set 
on high brick piers. The rural county of Camden, located in the northeast region of the 
State, was established in 1777. Its first courthouse burned about 1846. 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1984-85 




ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



The Honorable Joseph Branch, Chief Justice 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Chief Justice: 

In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the 
Nineteenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 
1984 — June 30, 1985. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and 
writing required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal 
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division. 
The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of 
superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court 
and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts. 

Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible. 

Respectfully submitted. 



Franklin E. Freeman, Jr. 
Director 



April, 1986 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Parti 

The 1984-85 Judicial Year in Review 

The 1984-85 Judicial Year in Review 1 

Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5 

The Present Court System 8 

Organization and Operations in 1984-85 

The Supreme Court 12 

The Court of Appeals 24 

The Superior Courts 32 

The District Courts 35 

District Attorneys 38 

Clerks of Superior Court 41 

Juvenile Services Division 43 

Public Defenders 45 

Appellate Defender 46 

The N.C. Courts Commission 47 

The Judicial Standards Commission 49 

Part III 
Court Resources 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 53 

Expenditures 56 

Receipts 58 

Distribution of Receipts 59 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 62 

Judicial Department Personnel 69 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data 

Trial Courts Case Data 73 

Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 77 

District Court Division Caseflow Data 141 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the 

Present Court System 8 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts 11 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina 12 

Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 14 

Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 15 

Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 15 

Supreme Court, Caseload Types 16 

Supreme Court, Submission of Cases to Decision Stage 17 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 17 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 18 

Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 19 

Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 19 

Supreme Court, Pending Cases 20 

Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed of, 

1 978-79— 1 984-85 21 

Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 

1 978-79— 1 984-85 22 

Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 23 

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 24 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 26 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed 27 

Court of Appeals, Manner of Disposition of Cases 28 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Motions and Petitions 29 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1979 — 1984-85 30 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 31 

Judges of Superior Court 32 

District Court Judges 35 

District Attorneys 38 

Clerks of Superior Court 41 

Chief Court Counselors 44 

Public Defenders 45 

Appellate Defenders 46 

The N.C. Courts Commission 47 

The Judicial Standards Commission 49 

Part HI 
Court Resources 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 53 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 54 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All 

State Agencies and Judicial Department 55 

General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 56 

J udicial Department Receipts 58 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 59 

ii 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 60 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 63 

Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 64 

Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 65 

Judicial Department Personnel 69 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data 

Superior Courts, Caseload 78 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 79 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends 80 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 81 

Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 82 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory 83 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 87 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 88 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending 93 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed 97 

Superior Courts, Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings 101 

Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 105 

Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases 106 

Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 107 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases 108 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 112 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By County 113 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 118 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By County 119 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending 124 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed 131 

District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 142 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases 143 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 144 

District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 145 

District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 146 

District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 147 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 151 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By County 152 

District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending 1 59 

District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed 163 

District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Pending 167 

District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/Transfer Cases Disposed 171 

District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions 175 

District Courts, Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions 177 

District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters 181 

District Courts, Trends of Criminal Cases 186 

District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 187 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 191 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 195 

iii 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

District Courts. Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 196 

District Courts. Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending 201 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed 206 

Rankings of Judicial Districts In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior Court and District Court Cases 211 

Rankings of Counties In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior and District Court Cases 212 



IV 



PARTI 



THE 1984-1985 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



THE 1984-85 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's 
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began 
July 1, 1984 and ended June 30, 1985. 



may not be recalled to temporary service on the Supreme 
Court. The compensation for a recalled retired appellate 
judge was increased from $75 a day to $100 a day. 



The Workload of the Courts 

Case filings in the Supreme Court totaled 227 com- 
pared with 201 filed during 1983-84. A total of 620 peti- 
tions were filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 541 
in 1983-84; and 111 petitions were allowed, compared 
with 69 in 1983-84. 

For the Court of Appeals for 1984-85, case filings were 
1 ,375 compared with 1 ,3 14 for the 1983-84 year. Petitions 
filed in 1 984-85 totaled 484, compared with 47 1 during the 
1983-84 year. 

More detailed data on the appellate courts is included 
in Part II of this Annual Report. 

In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) 
increased by 6.2% to a total of 85,569 in 1984-85, com- 
pared with 80,558 cases in 1983-84. Superior court case 
dispositions also increased, to a total of 84,334, compared 
with 80,290 in 1983-84. As case filings during the year 
exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases 
pending at the end of the year increased by 1,235. 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court 
filings (civil and criminal) during 1984-85 was 1,554,619, 
an increase of 104,440 cases (7.2%) from 1983-84 filings of 
1,450,179 cases. Much of this increase is attributable to 
inclusion, for the first time, of civil license revocation 
cases, which numbered 58,093 filings during 1984-85. 
(Excluding these cases, district court filings increased by 
3.2% from last year, from 1,450,179 filings to 1,496,526.) 
All areas of the District Court's caseload increased, with 
the most dramatic increase (23.8%) in the civil caseload, 
from 298,996 filings in 1983-84 to 370,091 in 1984-85, 
again attributable largely to the inclusion of civil license 
revocation cases. 

Operations of the superior and district courts are sum- 
marized in Part II of this Report, and detailed informa- 
tion on the caseloads in the 100 counties and 34 judicial 
districts is presented in Part IV. 

1985 Legislative Highlights 

Constitutional Amendment 

A proposed constitutional amendment providing for 
nonpartisan merit selection of judges failed to emerge 
from committee for the necessary three-fifths legislative 
approval for submission to a statewide vote. 

Service As Emergency Judge 

The General Assembly implemented a 1982 amend- 
ment to the State Constitution which authorizes legisla- 
tion to permit retired appellate judges to serve temporar- 
ily on either appellate court. The legislation was more 
narrowly drawn, however, than the constitutional amend- 
ment, inasmuch as retired judges of the Court of Appeals 



State Judicial Center Commission 

The General Assembly established the State Judicial 
Center Commission, "to study the current and future 
needs for office and court facilities of the Supreme Court, 
the Court of Appeals, and the Administrative Office of 
the Courts, and the desirability and practicability of pro- 
viding a single facility for the exclusive use of the State- 
level components of the judicial branch of government." 
The Commission will have nine members: two appointed 
by the Governor, two appointed by the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives; two appointed by the Presi- 
dent of the Senate; two appointed by the Chief Justice; 
and the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
Courts as an ex officio member. The Chief Justice 
appoints the chairman and the vice chairman. The legisla- 
tion further provides that the Commission is to report its 
findings and recommendations to the Governor and the 
General Assembly no later than March 1, 1987. 

Salaries 

The schedule of salaries for full-time magistrates (G.S. 
7 A- 1 7 1 . 1 (a) ( 1 )) was revised, increasing the annual salar- 
ies by at least 10% for all the State's magistrates and 
adding a seventh step to the schedule for magistrates with 
eleven or more years of service. Specific recognition was 
provided for magistrates designated as part-time to be 
covered under the retirement system and health insurance 
coverage program. 

Funds were appropriated for a 5% pay increase for 
other officials and employees of the Judicial Department. 
Additionally, the merit pay system was restored for the 
first time in three years, allowing those employees of the 
Judicial Department whose salaries are not itemized in 
the Appropriations Act to be eligible sometime during the 
fiscal year for a 4.8% merit increase. However, under the 
legislation neither the 5% salary increase nor the merit 
increase is applicable until the employee has been contin- 
uously employed for one year. 

Longevity pay previously enacted was continued, and 
judges who had previous service as an elected district 
attorney or clerk of superior court received credit on their 
longevity pay for that service. 

Jurisdiction of Magistrates 

The jurisdiction of magistrates in small claims cases 
was increased from $1,000 to $1,500. This change was 
made effective October 1, 1985. 

New Positions 

Funding was appropriated for the following additional 
positions in the Judicial Department: five district court 
judges; fourteen magistrates, seven of which will be effec- 



THE 1984-85 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



tive July 1. 1985. and the other seven positions effective 
Jul\ 1. 1986; five assistant district attorneys; five deputy 
clerk positions; additional law clerk positions for the 
appellate court, so that each appellate judge will have two 
law clerks; and two investigators for public defender 
offices. 

Equipment 

Much of the S7 million increase in funding for 1985-86 
was for continued upgrading of equipment in the Judicial 
Department. All counties will have automated cash regis- 
ters, and many will have state-of-the-art microfilm read- 
ers. Twenty-seven counties will have an automated child- 
support system, and 32 (formerly 22) counties will have an 
automated system for processing criminal cases. 

Appellate Defender 

The General Assembly made permanent the Appellate 
Defender Office by deleting the expiration provision from 
the statutes. Amendments were also enacted to give the 
Chief Justice, rather than the Governor, authority to 
appoint the Appellate Defender. 

Ten-Day Driver License Revocation Fee 

Proceeds from the ten-day driver license revocation fee, 
which driving-while-intoxicated offenders must pay to 
recover their driver licenses, are to be distributed to the 
counties to defray the costs of weekend confinement of 
those persons convicted of driving while impaired. (Chap- 
ter 698. Sec. 19, 1985 Session Laws) 

Decriminalization of Minor Traffic Offenses 

An act to classify minor traffic offenses as infractions 
and to provide a procedure for the disposition of such 
infractions by the courts was enacted by the 1985 General 
Assembly (Chapter 764, 1985 Session Laws). The sanc- 
tion for a person found responsible for an infraction is a 
monetary penalty, not to exceed $100. The act becomes 
effective July 1, 1986, to apply to offenses committed on 
and after that date. 

Indigent Defense 

Chapter 698, 1985 Session Laws, effective for indict- 
ments issued on or after July 11, 1985, amends G.S. 
7 A-450 to require that a second lawyer (assistant counsel) 
be appointed to assist in representing an indigent defend- 
ant charged with an offense that provides for the death 
penalty. If the public defender's office is representing the 
indigent defendant, the second lawyer may come from 
that office. 



Administrative Procedures Act 

The General Assembly rewrote (Ch. 746, 1985 Session 
Laws) the Administrative Procedure Act, affecting the 
method of handling cases before agencies of state govern- 
ment. The new Act creates an Office of Administrative 
Hearings to hear contested cases involving administrative 
rules and regulations. The Act sets up a two-track proce- 
dure for hearing contested cases involving state rules, 
which will apply to all cases commenced after January 1, 
1 986: ( 1 ) all cases concerning the Department of Human 
Resources will be heard by that agency's hearing officers, 
unless the aggrieved party requests a hearing officer from 
the Office of Administrative Hearings; and (2) cases 
involving other state agencies will be heard by the Office 
of Administrative Hearings, unless the aggrieved party 
prefers a hearing officer from the agency itself. Final 
decision-making authority still will rest with the agencies, 
although they must set out reasons in writing whenever 
they do not accept or adopt recommendation of the Office 
of Administrative Hearings. 

Publication of a North Carolina Register at least once a 
month is also required by the new Act. The Register will 
publish proposed rules, newly adopted rules, repeals and 
changes, and all executive orders issued by the Governor. 

The Act directs the President of the Senate and the 
Speaker of the House to ask the State Supreme Court for 
an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of two of the 
Act's provisions: (1) the Administrative Rules Review 
Commission, which is empowered to review and disallow 
proposed state agency rules; and (2) the appointment of 
the Chief Hearing Officer by the Chief Justice. The 
Administrative Rules Review Commission was not to be 
activated until 30 days after the advisory opinion, with the 
relevant sections of the Act becoming void if found 
unconstitutional; and should the advisory opinion advise 
that the Chief Justice may not constitutionally appoint 
the Chief Hearing Officer, that duty devolves upon the 
Attorney General. 

(On October 28, 1985, the Supreme Court declined to 
issue an advisory opinion on the merits of the questions, 
refusing "to place themselves directly in the stream of 
the legislative process" and deferring to "the General 
Assembly's prerogative to first address and determine the 
constitutionality of its legislation" without prior judicial 
involvement.) 

Appropriations 

The 1985 Session of the General Assembly approp- 
riated a total of $119,285,856 for the operation of the 
Judicial Department during the 1985-86 fiscal year, and a 
total of $8,796,794 for private assigned counsel fees (for 
representing indigents). 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1984-85 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi- 
cial system has been the focus of periodic attention and 
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeated 
sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform, 
and finally the enactment of some reform measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1700 the royal governor established a General 
(or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute devel- 
oped over the appointment of associate justices. The 
Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the 
chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the 
power to appoint the associate justices. Other controver- 
sies developed concerning the creation and jurisdiction of 
the courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the 
Assembly's position was that judge appointments should 
be for good behavior as against the royal governor's 
decision for life appointment. State historians have noted 
that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and 
the judicial structure in the province was grounded on 
laws enacted by the legislature", which was more familiar 
with local conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 
142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between 
periods under legislatively enacted reforms (like good 
behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which con- 
tained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) 
and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such enact- 
ment were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate 
system was framed by legislation in 1 767 to last five years. 
It was not renewed because of persisting disagreement 
between local and royal partisans. As a result, North 
Carolina was without higher courts until after Independ- 
ence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, 
judicial and county government administrative functions 
were combined in the authority of the justices of the 
peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the 
colonial structure of the court system was retained largely 
intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the 
county court which continued in use from about 1670 to 
1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the 
peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the 
governor on the recommendation of the General Assem- 
bly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On 
the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts 
of limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace, 
singly or in pairs, while the county court was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General 
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law 
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized 
three superior court judges and created judicial districts. 
Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of 
each district twice a year, under a system much like the 
one that had expired in 1 772. Just as there had been little 



distinction in terminology between General Court and 
Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms 
Supreme Court and Superior Court were also inter- 
changeable during the period immediately following the 
Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems con- 
fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judi- 
ciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary 
caused complaint and demands for reform. " ( Lefler and 
Newsome, 29 1 , 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting 
judge opinions, and insufficient number of judges, and 
lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems, 
although the greatest weakness was considered to be the 
lack of a real Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court 
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Confer- 
ence to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the 
districts. This court was continued and made permanent 
by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put 
their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in court. 
The Court of Conference was changed in name to the 
Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear appeals in 
1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, 
however, there was still no conception of an alternative to 
judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which 
they had themselves heard in the districts in panels of as 
few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an 
independent three-judge Supreme Court was created for 
review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in 
each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State 
was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six 
judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a 
quorum as before. 

The County Court of justices of the peace continued 
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of 
local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it 
more democratic were made in 1 868. A primary holdover 
from the English legal arrangement — the distinction 
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. 
The County Court's control of local government was 
abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, 
arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated 
that the aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy 
justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus prevent 
crime". The membership of the Supreme Court was 
raised to five, and the selection of the justices (including 
the designation of the chief justice) and superior court 
judges (raised in number to 12) was taken from the legis- 
lature and given to the voters, although vacancies were to 
be filled by the governor until the next election. The 
Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — The County 
Court of which three justices of the peace constituted a 
quorum — was eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities 
were divided between the Superior Courts and the indi- 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



vidual justices of the peace, who were retained as separate 
judicial officers with limited jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Con- 
stitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court 
justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. 
The General Assembly was given the power to appoint 
justices of the peace, instead of the governor. Most of the 
modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, 
however, were left, and the judicial structure it had estab- 
lished continued without systematic modification through 
more than half of the 20th century. (A further constitu- 
tional amendment approved by the voters in November, 
1888. returned the Supreme Court membership to five, 
and the number of superior court judges to twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time sys- 
tematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This 
accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court 
system was most evident at the lower, local court level, 
where hundreds of courts specially created by statute 
operated with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction. 

By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North 
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court, 
with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with 
general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts of 
limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and 
mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divided 
into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The 
38 superior court judges (who rotated among the coun- 
ties) and the district solicitors were paid by the State. The 
clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate and 
often also a juvenile judge, was a county official. There 
were specialized branches of superior court in some coun- 
ties for matters like domestic relations and juvenile 
offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of 
these local court levels were more than 1 80 recorder-type 
courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, 
municipal recorder's courts and township recorder's 
courts; the general county courts, county criminal courts 
and special county courts; the domestic relations courts 
and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been estab- 
lished individually by special legislative acts more than a 
half-century earlier. Others had been created by general 
law across the State since 1919. About half were county 
courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction 
included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), prelim- 
inary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, 
who were usually part-time, were variously elected or 
appointed locally. 

At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and 
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar 
criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up 



to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace 
also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court 
officials were compensated by the fees they exacted, and 
they provided their own facilities. 



Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revision 
of the court system received the attention and support of 
Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged 
the leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to 
pursue the matter. A Court Study Committee was estab- 
lished as an agency of the North Carolina Bar Associa- 
tion, and that Committee issued its report, calling for 
reorganization, at theend of 1958. A legislative Constitu- 
tional Commission, which worked with the Court Study 
Committee, finished its report early the next year. Both 
groups called for the structuring of an all-inclusive court 
system which would be directly state-operated, uniform 
in its organization throughout the State and centralized 
in its administration. The plan was for a simplified, 
streamlined and unified structure. A particularly impor- 
tant part of the proposal was the elimination of the local 
satutory courts and their replacement by a single District 
Court; the office of justice of the peace was to be abol- 
ished, and the newly fashioned position of magistrate 
would function within the District Court as a subordinate 
judicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the 
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required 
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were rein- 
troduced and approved at the 1961 session. The Constitu- 
tional amendments were approved by popular vote in 
1962, and three years later the General Assembly enacted 
statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By the end 
of 1970 all of the counties and their courts had been 
incorporated into the new system, whose unitary nature 
was symbolized by the name, General Court of Justice. 
The designation of the entire 20th century judicial system 
as a single, statewide "court," with components for vari- 
ous types and levels of caseload, was adapted from North 
Carolina's earlier General Court, whose full venue ex- 
tended to all of the 17th century counties. 



After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has continued. 
In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the 
creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was 
amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to 
censure or remove judges upon the recommendation of a 
Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of 
judges, persistent efforts were made in the 1970's to obtain 
legislative approval of amendments to the State Constitu- 
tion, to appoint judges according to "merit" instead of 
electing them by popular, partisan vote. The proposed 
amendments received the backing of a majority of the 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 

members of each house, but not the three-fifths required people. It seems likely that this significant issue will be 
to submit constitutional amendments to a vote of the before the General Assembly again for consideration. 

Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 

Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 

Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The History of a Southern Stale. 1963 Edition. 

Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of Government. 

Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular 1973. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 



Recommendations 

from Judicial 

I Standards Commission | 

l I 



Original Jurisdiction 
All felony cases; civil 
cases in excess of $10,000** 



I 1 

Decisions of 

I Most Administrative 

Agencies 





Final Order of 

-' Utilities Commission in I 

General Rate Case 



SUPERIOR 
COURTS 

72 Judges 



Original Jurisdiction 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 
(condemnations, adoptions, 
partitions, foreclosures, 
etc.) 



criminal cases 
(for trial dc novo) 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 

146 Judges 



Clerks of Superior 
Court 

(100) 



Magistrates 

(623) 






Decisions of Industrial '< 

Commission, State Bar 4 j' 

Property Tax Commission, I 

I Commissioner of Insurance, i 
• Bd. of State Contract Appeals 



/ Original Jurisdiction 

Misdemeanor cases not assigned 
to magistrates; probable cause 
hearings; civil cases $10,000* 
or less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain misdemeanor 
guilty pleas: worthless check 
misdemeanors $500 or less; 
small claims $1,500 or less** 



( 1 ) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving comstitutional 
questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals 
decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 

(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 

(3j As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or life 
imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. In all other cases 
appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts incases where delay 
would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. 



*The district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is the proper 
division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $ 10,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper division for the 
trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243). 
''Magistrate jurisdiction in small claims cases increased from $1,000 to $1,500 effective October I, 1985 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab- 
lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute 
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, 
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an 
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a 
District Court Division." 

The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme 
Court and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is comprised of the super- 
ior courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the 
100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into 
judicial districts (34 at the present time), and one or more 
superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial 
districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is 
elected by the voters of the county. 

The District Court Division is comprised of the district 
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the 
State into a convenient number of local court districts and 
prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district 
court must sit in at least one place in each county. The 
General Assembly has provided that districts for pur- 
poses of the district court are co-terminous with superior 
court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for 
one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county 
"who shall be officers of the district court." 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains 
the term, "judicial department, "stating that "The General 
Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial 
department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully 
pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the govern- 
ment, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other 
than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General 
Court of Justice" and "Judicial Department" are almost, 
but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judi- 
cial Department encompasses all of the levels of court 
designated as the General Court of Justice plus all admin- 
istrative and ancillary services within the Judicial De- 
partment. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between 
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of 
courts are illustrated in the chart on the opposite page. 

Criminal Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original juris- 
diction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses 
are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to 
accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines 
in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of 
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors 
are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary, 
"probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony 
cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. 

Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district 
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury 
available at the district court level; appeal from the dis- 
trict courts'judgments in criminal cases is to the superior 
courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life- 
imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are appealed 



to the Supreme Court), appeal from the superior courts is 
to the Court of Appeals. 

Civil Cases 

The 1 00 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of 
probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and 
estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over 
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con- 
demnations under the authority of eminent domain, and 
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the 
superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile 
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for invol- 
untary commitment to a mental hospital, and are the 
"proper" courts for general civil cases where the amount 
in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount in con- 
troversy is $1,500 or less and the plaintiff in the case so 
requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case 
for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions 
may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for 
civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from 
the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the 
North Carolina Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is 
more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most 
administrative agencies is first within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in 
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general 
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of 
the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 
7A-32(b)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, 
the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain 
Judicial Department officials with specific powers and 
responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The 
Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing 
rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts 
and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supple- 
ment those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the Court 
of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsi- 
ble for scheduling the sessions of the Court of Appeals. 

The chart on the following page illustrates specific 
responsibilities for administration of the trial courts 
vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The 
Chief Justice appoints the Director and an Assistant 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; this 
Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's 
administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of 
superior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme 
Court; assignment of the State's rotating superior court 
judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally, 
the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge for 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



each of the State's 34 judicial districts from among the 
elected district court judges of the respective districts. 
These judges have responsibilities for the scheduling of 
the district courts and magistrates' courts within their 
respective districts, along with other administrative respon- 
sibilities. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible 
for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business 
affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its 
functions are fiscal management, personnel services, 
information and statistical services, supervision of record 
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the 
legislative and executive departments of government, 
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa- 
tion and training, coordination of the program for provi- 



sion of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile proba- 
tion and after-care, trial court administrator services, 
planning, and general administrative services. 

The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk 
for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the 
clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar 
committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective 
July 1, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to- 
day calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of 
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some 
districts, under the supervision of the senior resident 
superior court judge and chief district court judge. The 
criminal case calendars in both superior and district 
courts are set by the district attorney of the respective 
district. 



If) 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 



(34) Senior Resident 

Judges; (100) Clerks 

of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 




CHIEFJUST1CE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 



i 



Administrative 

Office of 

the Courts 



i 



(35) District 
Attorneys 




(34) Chief District 
Court Judges 

DISTRICT 
COURTS 



■The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who 
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the 
pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 34 judicial districts from the judges elected in 
the respective districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the 
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the 
Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and 
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective 
courts. 

<Tn addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping 
functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the 
chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk 
of superior court. 



11 



THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Justice 
JOSEPH BRANCH 



JAMES G. EXUM, JR. 
LOUIS B. MEYER 
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. 



Associate Justices 



HARRY C. MARTIN 

HENRY E. FRYE 

EARL W. VAUGHN 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 

SUSIE SHARP 



Retired Justices 



J. WILL PLESS, JR. 
I. BEVERLY LAKE 
DAN K. MOORE 
WALTER E. BROCK 



J. FRANK HUSKINS 

DAVID M. BRITT 

WILLIAM COPELAND 



Clerk 
J. Gregory Wallace 



Librarian 
Frances H. Hall 



*Asof 30 June 1985. 



12 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



The Supreme Court 



At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to 
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil 
and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six 
associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the 
voters of the State. There are two terms of the Supreme 
Court each year: a Spring Term commencing on the first 
Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the 
first Tuesday in September. The Court does not sit in 
panels. It sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on 
each case. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the 
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges 
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial 
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic- 
tion includes: 

— cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals 
(cases involving substantial constitutional ques- 
tions and cases in which there has been dissent in 
the Court of Appeals); 

— cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commis- 
sion (cases involving final order or decision in a 
general rate matter); 

— criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (cases in which the defendant has been sen- 
tenced to death or life imprisonment); and 

— cases in which review has been granted in the 
Supreme Court's discretion. 

Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly 
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would 
likely cause subsantial harm or when the workload of the 
Appellate Division is such that the expeditious adminis- 
tration of justice requires it. However, most appeals are 
heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and 
control the proceedings of the other courts of the General 
Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to pres- 
cribe the rules of practice and procedure for the trial court 
divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by the Gen- 
eral Assembly. The schedule of superior court sessions in 
the 100 counties is approved yearly, by the Supreme 
Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Librarian of 
the Supreme Court Library, and the Appellate Division 
Reporter are appointed by the Supreme Court. 



The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and 
an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the 
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from 
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief 
District Court Judge from among the district judges in 
each of the State's 34judicial districts. He assigns superior 
court judges, who regularly rotate from district to district, 
to the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 100 
counties, and he is also empowered to transfer district 
court judges to other districts for temporary or special- 
ized duty. The Chief Justice appoints three of the seven 
members of the Judicial Standards Commission — a judge 
of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Commission's 
chairman, one superior court judge and one district court 
judge. The Chief Justice also appoints six of the 24 voting 
members of the N.C. Courts Commission: one associate 
justice of the Supreme Court; one Court of Appeals 
judge; two superior court judges; and two district court 
judges. The Chief Justice also appoints the Appellate 
Defender, and the Chief Hearing Officer of the Office of 
Administrative Hearings. 

Expenses of the Court, 1984-85 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1984-85 fiscal year amounted to $ 1 ,845,637, an increase of 
17.5% over total 1984-85 expenditures of $1,571,316. 
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1984-85 con- 
stituted 1.5% of all General Fund expenditures for the 
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the 
fiscal year. 

Case Data, 1984-85 

A total of 346 appealed cases were before the Supreme 
Court during the fiscal year, 1 19 that were pending on 
July 1, 1984 plus 227 cases filed through June 30, 1985. A 
total of 177 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 169 
cases pending on June 30, 1985. 

A total of 782 petitions (requests to appeal) were before 
the Court during the 1984-85 year, with 665 disposed 
during the year and 177 pending as of June 30, 1985. The 
Court granted more petitions for review (111) during 
1984-85 than in any prior year. 

More detailed date on the Court's workload is pres- 
ented on the following pages. 



13 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 

Supreme Court Caseload Inventory 

July 1,1984-June 30, 1985 



Petitions for Review 

Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal 

Postconviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 

Total Petitions for Review 



'ending 






Pending 


7/1/84 


Filed 


Disposed 


6/30/85 


9 


36 


41 


4 





8 


7 


1 


SO 


278 


298 


60 


44 


189 


200 


33 


12 


72 


69 


15 


17 


37 


50 


4 



162 



620 



665 



117 



Appeals 

Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic 

appeals 
Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 
Other civil 
Petitions for review granted that became other civil 

appeals 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death* 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment* 
Other criminal 
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal 

appeals 
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction 

remedy cases 
Administrative agency decision 
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of 

administrative agency decision 

Total Appeals 

Other Proceedings 

Rule 16(b) additional issues re dissent 

Extraordinary writs 

Advisory opinion 

Rule amendments 

Motions 

Total Other Proceedings 



1 


4 


4 


1 


3 


4 


5 


2 


! 
i 


1 
i 


2 
i 



i 


I 

17 


i 

28 


i 

29 


l 
16 


18 


41 


34 


25 


12 


5 


10 


7 


37 


79 


43 


73 


13 


30 


25 


18 



13 



12 





5 


1 
13 




7 


1 
11 


4 


7 


5 


6 


119 


227 


177 


169 



2 


12 


14 





1 


62 


63 

















6 


28 


34 








837 


837 






939 



948 



*For fiscal 1 984-85 (and for future years), refinements have been made as to the time at which criminal death and criminal 
life appeals are counted for statistical purposes as "pending" cases. As a result, there is a difference between the number of 
cases indicated as pending on the table above on July 1 , 1 984, and the number of cases given as pending on June 30, 1984 

in last year's Annual Report. 



14 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 

APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
JULY 1, 1984 — JINE 30, 1985 



CRIMINAL-DEATH 



CRIMINAL LIFE 



OTHER CIVIL 




JUVENILE 1%(2) 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



OTHER CRIMINAL 



ADMIN. AGENCY 



PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
JULY 1, 1984 - JUNE 30, 1985 



CRIMINAL 




OTHER CIVIL 



POST-CONVICTION 



ADMIN. AGENCY 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



15 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 

Supreme Court Caseload Types by Judicial District and Division 

July 1, 1984-June 30, 1985 



Judicial 


Judicial 


Total 


Death 


Life 


Other 


Civil 


Other 


Cases 


Division 


District 


Cases 


Cases 


Cases 


Criminal 


Cases 


Cases 


Disposed 


I 


1 


9 





3 





6 





5 




2 


4 


1 


1 


2 








2 




3A 


7 


1 


1 


2 


1 





2 




3B 


7 





3 





3 


1 


5 




4 


8 


1 


6 


1 








4 




5 


7 


2 





2 


3 





4 




6 


7 


2 


4 





1 





4 




7 


9 


1 


3 


1 


3 


1 


2 




8 


6 


1 


3 


2 








3 


SUBTOTAL 




64 


9 


26 


10 


17 


2 


31 


11 


9 


3 


2 








1 





2 




10 


69 





13 


8 


18 


30 


35 




11 


7 





2 


2 


3 





2 




12 


13 





5 


6 


2 





5 




13 


4 


2 


1 


1 













14 


11 


1 


3 


1 


5 


1 


2 




15A 


9 


1 


4 


2 


1 


1 







15B 


15 





4 


2 


8 


1 


7 




16 


11 


3 


2 


3 


2 


1 


3 


SUBTOTAL 




142 


9 


34 


25 


40 


34 


56 


III 


17A 


4 


1 





2 


1 





2 




17B 


3 


1 





1 


1 





3 




18 


22 


1 


14 


2 


5 





9 




19A 


8 


1 


4 


1 


2 





4 




19B 


4 





2 


2 








3 




20 


8 





3 


1 


4 





4 




21 


25 


2 


10 


3 


7 


3 


14 




22 


10 


2 


3 


3 


1 


1 


4 




23 


8 





5 


1 


2 





3 


SUBTOTAL 




92 


8 


41 


16 


23 


4 


46 


IV 


24 


3 


1 


1 


1 








2 




25 


12 





6 


3 


3 





4 




26 


30 


1 


8 


2 


14 


5 


19 




27A 


9 


1 


4 


3 


1 





4 




27B 


3 


1 


1 








1 


3 




28 


18 





8 


4 


6 





2 




29 


14 


3 


7 


2 


1 


1 


8 




30 


8 





4 


1 


3 





2 


SUBTOTAL 




97 


7 


39 


16 


28 


7 


44 


TOTALS 




395 


33 


140 


67 


108 


47 


177 



16 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 

Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 
July 1, 1984-June 30, 1985 



Cases Argued 

Civil 
Criminal 

Total cases argued 



87 
100 

187 



Submissions Without Argument 

By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d)) 
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f)) 

Total submissions without argument 

Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage 



17 
1 

18 
205 



Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court 

July 1, 1984-June 30, 1985 









Dismissed/ 


Total 


Petitions for Review 


Granted* 


Denied 


Withdrawn 


Disposed 


Civil Domestic 


6 


35 





41 


Juvenile 


1 


6 





7 


Other Civil 


54 


242 


2 


298 


Criminal 


35 


162 


3 


200 


Postconviction Remedy 


3 


52 


14 


69 


Administrative Agency Decision 


12 


37 


1 


50 


Total Petitions for Review 


111 


534 


20 


665 



Other Proceedings 

Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues 
Extraordinary Writs 
Advisory Opinion 
Rule Amendments 
Motions 

Total Other Proceedings 

♦"GRANTED" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal 



8 


6 





14 


.2 


41 





63 



34 

837 

948 



17 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Published Opinion 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 


3 


1 


1 


1 





6 


Juvenile 


l) 


2 











2 


Other civil 


12 


7 


9 


30 





58 


Criminal (death sentence) 


9 














9 


Criminal (life sentence) 


}b 





1 


4 


1 


42 


Other criminal 


6 





2 


9 





17 . 


Postconviction remedy 




















Administrative agency 














decision 


4 


1 





3 





8 


DWI 


6 








1 





7 


Totals 


76 


11 


13 


38 


1 


149 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decision 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 


2 


1 











3 


Juvenile 


1 














1 


Other civil 


10 


1 





2 





13 


Criminal (death sentence) 











1 





1 


Criminal (life sentence) 











1 





1 


Other criminal 


12 











1 


13 


Postconviction remedy 




















Administrative agency 














decision 


3 








1 





4 


Totals 


28 


2 





5 


1 


36 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal 



Case Types 



Dismissed or 
Withdrawn 



Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other Civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 

Criminal (life sentence) 

Other criminal 

Post-conviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 



Totals 



IX 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 

MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT 

July 1,1984-June 30, 1985 



OPINIONS 



DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN 2% 

(3) 




PER CURIAM DECISIONS 



TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT 

JULY 1, 1984-June 30, 1985 



DENIED 




GRANTED 



DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN 



19 



I 
T 
X 

Os 






O 

H 

S 

o 



Os 



e 
c 

3 



03 

a* 






2 a 

H 
< 
Si 
_ 

O 

Q 

y 

< 



>-. 
CO 

y; 
a> 

« 
U 
ox 

C 

•3 

c 
eu 

S- 



3 

O 

U 

C 

5 

ha 

a 

3 
X 



E 

3 

z 





©x 




— « 


B 


yi 


H 




<u 




TJ 


</i 





r 


« 


H 


0. 


O 



s 



C 

g 

a 

ox 

"5 

l_ 

O 



X) 

S3 
V 

as 

o 
Z 



13 

4< 

3 

-^ WD 

CJD C _ i_ 

S .O 3 « 

IS "« 3 «» 

a. Q 5 g 
o 



"3 M 

2 .s 

O c •£ 

o E ^ 

!«-> OX^ 

"S3 E 

4> O 

OS * 



ox 
c 

ex- 1 " *-5 
2? eg 4i 

.: ni" ^ 

*» 55 " u 

1 S-g ■§ 

tt B 



o 


</) 


«T> 


^. 




S3 


AC 


e 




iri 


>i 


"■• 


S3 


p* 


Q 


ON 




O 




ON 


S3 


o 


Q 



o 


1/1 
>- 


ON 


rfl 


A 


D 


o 


i/i 


ON 


>i 


1 


S3 


v© 


Q 


o 


if 


NO 


S3 


o 


Q 



<< 



o 




NO 


"1 


/\ 


Q 


o 


i/i 


NO 


►i 




03 


TT 


Q 


o 


>- 


^t 


S3 


O 


Q 







_ 


2 >- 






ox 


? « 




M 


fi 


Aq 


ox 


*-*-* 


^* 




S 


5- 


sw 


O (/) 


'^ 


u 


T >■■ 


"8 

if 


Q. CO 




-a 


• C3 


< 


a. 


g 




o £ 






* 


«■? « 








oQ 



ox 



ox u 
c c 
— e3 



ox* *- g 

■S \ 3i I 

•a o a ox 

«3 y o a 

S « Q § 

<« i g 

£ 2 



e 


1/1 


«n 


>-. 


fM< 


C3 


AQ 


o 




Wi 


► 


"~* 


S3 


ml 


a 


NO 




© 


</i 


NO 


S3 


o 


Q 



a. 
>■. 

H 



S3 

U 



•M *X f*l 



ON 






— nO 



o ^ 



sO rn no iri 



ri 



iC 



ri 



in 



n 



rj 



O r*^ 



sO 



O "* 



o — — 



o o 



rt 



r^ 



o o 



o o 



r~ 



D 



OO nO 



nO t~~ 



CnI — 



o — 



O <N 



o o 



o o 



o o 



o 
XJ 



E 
o 

X) 



U 



-a o 



4J 



73 











■v 


B 




E 


u 




i> 


DXj 




u 


ca 


, 


B 


u 


cd 


o 


-- 


c 




•rj 


3 


o 






c 

o 




u 


"c 


1> 


o 


E 


JZ 


s> 



o 









00 



U U 



G 



53 

0» 

Q. 

Q. 
< 

"3 

o 
H 



E 
c 

o 

D. 

E 



o 

u 

o 



c 

c3 

■o 

c 



73 



-D 



D. 



■a 

u 

o 



c 



SI 

< 



20 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 

Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years, 1978-79—1984-85 



400 



300 



N 
U 
M 
B 
E 
R 



O 
F 



C 
A 

S 
E 
S 



200 



100 



Appeals Docketed 
Appeals Disposed of 



243 




227 




177 



1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 



21 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 

Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years, 1978-79—1984-85 



SIX) 



600 



N 
I 

M 
B 
E 
R 



O 
F 



C 
A 

S 
F 
S 



400 



200 



B 



Petitions Docketed 
Petitions Allowed 




620 



111 



74 



1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 



22 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases 

(Total time in days from docketing to decision) 

July 1, 1984-June 30, 1985 



Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals 

Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 

Other civil 

Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 

Other criminal 

Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals 

Petitions for review granted that became postconviction remedy cases 

Administrative agency decision 

Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative 
agency decision 

Driving while impaired 

Total appeals 



Number 


(Days) 


(Days) 


of Cases 


Median 


Mean 


4 


— 


156.5 


5 


235 


249.6 


2 


— 


285.5 


1 


372 


372.0 


29 


221 


241.2 


31 


181 


257.1 


10 


302 


307.4 


43 


234 


256.2 


18 


161 


176.4 


12 


7 


145 


181.4 


200 


176.6 


5 


152 


146.6 


7 


104 


108.9 


177 


215 


229.6 



23 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Judge 
R.A. HEDRICK 



GERALD ARNOLD 
JOHN WEBB 
HUGH A. WELLS 
WILLIS P. WHICHARD 
CHARLES L. BECTON 
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON 



Judges 



EUGENE H. PHILLIPS 

SIDNEYS. EAGLES, JR. 

JOHN C. MARTIN 

SARAH PARKER 

JACK COZORT 



Retired Chief Judge 
NAOMI E. MORRIS 



HUGH B. CAMPBELL 
FRANK M. PARKER 
EDWARD B. CLARK 



Retired Judges 



ROBERT M. MARTIN 

CECIL J. HILL 

MAURICE BRASWELL 



Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



♦As of 30 June 1985 



24 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



The Court of Appeals 



The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's 
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the 
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The 
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other 
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme 
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular 
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by 
popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the 
Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the 
Chief Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the 
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the 
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each 
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal number 
of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides 
over the panel of which he or she is a member and desig- 
nates a presiding judge for the other panels. 

One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by the 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of 
the Judicial Standards Commission. 



In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial 
Standards Commission to censure or remove from office 
a justice of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) recom- 
mendation would be considered by the Chief Judge and 
the six judges next senior in service on the Court of 
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis- 
sion's chairman). Such seven-member panel would have 
sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recom- 
mendation. 

Expenses of the Court, 1984-85 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 
1984-85 fiscal year totalled $2,518,083, an increase of 
11.4% over 1983-84 expenditures of $2,260,654. Expendi- 
tures for the Court of Appeals during 1984-85 amounted 
to 2.0% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of 
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. This 
percentage share of the total is 0.2% less than the Court of 
Appeals' percentage share of the Judicial Department 
total in the 1983-84 fiscal year. 



Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals con- 
sists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The Court 
also hears appeals directly from the Industrial Commis- 
sion; certain final orders or decisions of the North Carol- 
ina State Bar; and the Commissioner of Insurance; the 
State Board of Contract Appeals; and appeals from cer- 
tain final orders or decisions of the Property Tax Com- 
mission. (Appeals from the decisions of other administra- 
tive agencies lie first within the jurisdiction of the superior 
courts.) 



Case Data, 1984-85 

A total of 1,375 appealed cases were filed before the 
Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1984 — 
June 30, 1985. A total of 1,464 cases were disposed of 
during the same period. During 1984-85, a total of 484 
petitions and 2,05 1 motions were filed before the Court of 
Appeals. 

Further detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals 
is shown in the tables and graph on the following pages. 



25 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
July 1, 1984-June 30, 1985 

Cases on Appeal Filings Dispositions 

Civil cases appealed from district courts 290 

Civil cases appealed from superior courts 485 

Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 97 

Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 503 

Total 1,375 1,464 



Petitions 

Allowed 91 

Denied 371 

Remanded 

Total 484 462 



Motions 

Allowed 1,620 

Denied 379 

Remanded 1 

Total 2,051 2,000 

Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 3,910 3,926 



26 



Totals 



INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1984- June 30, 1985 







Cases Filed 




Other 


Total 
Cases 


Total 


Judicial Judicial 


Appeals from 


Appeals from Superior Court 


Cases 


Division District 


District Courts 


Civil 


Criminal 


Appeals 


Filed 


Disposed 


I 1 


5 


15 


7 





27 


22 


2 


2 


7 


14 





23 


27 


3 


7 


15 


17 





39 


50 


4 


9 


6 


20 





35 


53 


5 


7 


12 


27 





46 


37 


6 


1 


5 


14 





20 


20 


7 


7 


10 


13 





30 


25 


8 


7 


10 


32 





49 


43 


II 9 


3 


9 


4 





16 


16 


10 


24 


75 


20 


96 


215 


199 


11 


5 


7 


13 





25 


33 


12 


11 


17 


44 





72 


61 


13 


3 


6 


6 





15 


22 


14 


14 


16 


20 





50 


54 


15A/B* 


10 


16 


22 





48 


67 


16 


4 


3 


12 





19 


31 


III 17A/B* 


5 


7 


7 





19 


23 


18 


28 


28 


17 


1 


74 


83 


19A/B* 


9 


9 


22 





40 


55 


20 


12 


20 


15 





47 


48 


21 


28 


24 


24 





76 


77 


22 


15 


21 


11 





47 


62 


23 


8 


17 


14 





39 


27 


IV 24 


1 


7 


7 





15 


17 


25 


10 


17 


14 





41 


55 


26 


26 


46 


40 





112 


96 


27A/B* 


9 


12 


21 





42 


55 


28 


3 


17 


12 





32 


50 


29 


12 


19 


10 





41 


32 


30 


5 


12 


4 





21 


24 



290 



485 



503 



97 



1,375 



1,464 



♦Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. 
Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



27 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1984-June 30, 1985 

Cases Disposed by Written Opinion 











Cases Affirmed 


Total Cases 






Judicial 


Judicial 


Cases 


Cases 


in Part, Reversed 


by Written 


Other Cases 


Total Cases 


Division 


District 


Affirmed 


Reversed 


in Part 


Opinion 


Disposed 


Disposed 


1 


1 


11 


5 


2 


18 


4 


22 




: 


23 


4 





27 





27 




3 


31 


12 


1 


44 


6 


50 




4 


37 


9 


5 


51 


2 


53 




5 


18 


9 


4 


31 


6 


37 




6 


18 


2 





20 





20 




7 


13 


11 


1 


25 





25 




8 


32 


5 


3 


40 


3 


43 


II 


9 


6 


7 


1 


14 


2 


16 




in 


118 


35 


13 


166 


33 


199 




li 


22 


II 





33 





33 




12 


42 


15 


2 


59 


2 


61 




13 


18 


2 


1 


21 


1 


22 




14 


30 


13 


7 


50 


4 


54 




15A/B* 


41 


15 


8 


64 


3 


67 




16 


24 


4 


3 


31 





31 


111 


17A/B* 


12 


5 


3 


20 


3 


23 




18 


51 


20 


6 


77 


6 


83 




19A/B* 


32 


14 


4 


50 


5 


55 




20 


31 


II 


1 


43 


5 


48 




21 


46 


17 


6 


69 


8 


77 




22 


41 


14 


3 


58 


4 


62 




23 


IX 


7 


1 


26 


1 


27 


IV 


24 


12 


4 





16 


1 


17 




2? 


30 


16 





46 


9 


55 




26 


58 


16 


9 


83 


13 


96 




27A/B* 


28 


15 


4 


47 


8 


55 




28 


31 


14 


2 


47 


3 


50 




2y 


22 


4 


4 


30 


2 


32 




30 


12 


6 


2 


20 


4 


24 



Totals 



908 



322 



96 



1,326 



138 



1,464 



'Combined totals for Districts 15A and I5B, Districts 17A and I7B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. 

Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



28 



■o 

— « 

2 S 

o a, 

H .22 





s© ^ r~ so 



O IT) SO 00 



f^N*0eN*»O 



1*1 f^ t^- (*) N IT T 



— < SO m sO T Os «*) 

r< os oo oo r- in in 



>o 

T 



Pm 
< 

O 

H 

a 
P 
o 

w 

EC 

H 

W 

o 

u» 
w 

QQ 

z 
o 



H 

W 
Cu 

Q 
Z 

en 
Z 

o 

H 
O 



u. 
O 

>* 

o 

H 

z 

w 
> 

z 



IT) 

OO 



G 
3 
"■9 

oo 

ON 



"3 



O S3 






oooooooo 



oooooooo 



o o o o o o o 



o o o o 



o o 



oo so — oo c^i — m ^ 



oo — r-- rn <■«■> m m 



m sO — — — 
(N — — Csl 



(N oo r~~ 



r-OsOfNin — r-- in 



— a»io (N o f^ rf - 



ox — o vCcm 



os m o t -« 
— r- 

r*1 






oooooooo 



o — oooooo 



o o o o o o o 



o o o o o o o 



Os Os ci [-- OO — Tl" Os 



— so oo m o — ■>* 



m o so m Csl rsi oo 

Csl Csl 



rNsor--asosoor--(-<-, 



r-ro<Noo — — csirN 

■5t Tt — 0O — lOsOOO 



09 
C 






















"O 


in 


^C 


r- 


— 


Os 


Ol 


— 


O 


4) 


— 




— 


— 


— 


— 


ri 


ri 










































4> 


u. 


















a. 




















c/> 




















c 
_0 


•Z3 


rj 


r-~ 


in 


r~- 


C4 


Os 


— 


rj 


ai 


m 


r*i 


Os 


r~- 


OS 


m 


"it 


vC 



"t — t O Qs o 

— (Nc-)Or«->oOsO(N 

("s| 



c~> fN sO r«-, m x (N (N 

«Ni--'<*osTt — o^ 

r*i — — 



— t \C — <-»->r--OsO 

— r~- rsi — csl — 



(N X O (SI O — CslsO 

— os'tr-Ttooorsi 

Cs| — 



t X (N r, t o o 
csi r~- in csl r-- ^ f> 






so — o rsi r- so 
m r-- rt rsi in rt 



t^ Tj- vO 



ro os rsi — os r-- m 

r-4 os os os r~- in in 



IT, 



os — oo os in m o 
fN o m ?n os in -"t 



— <Nr<-irtinsDr~-oo 



os o — rsi C-, ■*}• 



32 

< 

in so 



QQ 



# 

03 



r-~ oo os o — rsi r<~, 

— — -(N(N(NM 



23 

< 

Tf in so i~- oo os o 

fN (N (N (N (N tN f, 



vG 


-I- 


C", 


r\ 


-r 


sC 


— 


Os 


Q 




ri 


c-i 












T3 

C 
-3 

3> 

T3 

C 
r3 


ro 


r*\ 


in 


D 


ITi 


1-1 


JG 


o 


*r 


— 


in 


n 


^C 


in 


f*"l 


r*i 


r-< 


3- 



■a 
c 

33 



r I 


Os 


OS 


n 


^3 


— 


in 


T 


u 






r*1 










oo 


SQ 
in 

— 


— 


3 


r*-, 


Os 


m 


^c 


jC 


_ 


-3 


n 


X3 


m 


r- 


r- 


-r 


1- 


IT/ 
















e 


< 

in 



3 § 
= 1 



O 



I? 
11 



29 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
FISCAL YEARS 1979 THROUGH 1984-85 



3000 



2500 



N 

r 

M 
B 
E 

R 



O 



C 

A 
S 
E 
S 



2000 



1500 



1 000 



500 




1979 



1980 1981 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 



Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed Appeals. During 1983-84, dispositions exceeded filings 

cases and petitions (not motions) in the Court of for the first time since 1980. 



JO 





(/3 




c 




o 








</3 


£ 


> 


w 





H 


c 


I* 


« 


V) 


<n 




*j 


H 

OS 


** 


p 


(/3 


o 





u 


__ 




«3 


H 


u 


Z 


•3 


w 


3 


en 


1-9 


w 


« 




o 




a 


H 


£ 




■*- 




u. 




O 




Z 




31 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* 
(As of June 30, 1985) 



FIRST DIVISION 
District 

1 J. Herbert Small. Elizabeth City 
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City 

2 William C. Griffin, Jr., Williamston 

3 David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville 
Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City 

4 Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 

5 Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington 

6 Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro 
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount 

8 James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

SECOND DIVISION 

9 Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 
Henry H. Hight, Jr., Henderson 

10 James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 
Henry V. Barnett, Jr., Raleigh 
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh 

1 1 Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn 

12 Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville 

13 Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 

14 Thomas H. Lee, Durham 
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama 
James M. Read, Durham 

15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 

15B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill 

16 B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 



THIRD DIVISION 
District 

17A Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth 

17B James M. Long, Pilot Mountain 

18 W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Edward K. Washington, High Point 
Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro 
Joseph John, Greensboro 

19A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 
James C. Davis, Concord 

19B Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro 

20 F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 
William H. Helms, Wingate 

21 William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem 
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 

22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville 
C. Preston Cornelius, Morresville 

23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 

FOURTH DIVISION 

24 Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 

25 Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 

26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte 
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte 
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte 
William T. Grist, Charlotte 
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 

27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

28 Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 
C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

29 Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton 

30 James U. Downs, Franklin 
Joseph A. Pachnowski, Bryson City 



'In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first. 



32 



SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 



James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem 
John B. Lewis, Jr., Farmville 
Mary M. Pope, Southern Pines 
Donald L. Smith, Raleigh 



Fred J. Williams, Durham 
Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh 
Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville 
Lamar Gudger, Asheville 



EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 

Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton 

Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton 

Hal H. Walker, Asheboro 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1985) 

William T. Grist, Charlotte, President 

Bradford Tillery, Wilmington, President- Elect 

Robert Lewis, Asheville, Vice President 

Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville, 
Secretary- Treasurer 

D.B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville, and William Z. Wood, 
Winston-Salem, Additional Executive Committee 
Members 



33 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



The Superior Courts 



North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris- 
diction trial courts for the state. In 1984-85, there were 64 
"resident" superior court judges elected to office in the 34 
judicial districts for eight-year-terms by Statewide ballot. 
In addition, eight "special" superior court judges are 
appointed by the Governor for four-year terms. 

Jurisdiction 



The superior court has original jurisdiction in all felony 
cases and in those misdemeanor cases which originate by 
grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are tried first 
in the district court, from which conviction may be 
appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury. 
No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district 
court.) The superior court is the proper court for the trial 
of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds 
S 10.000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from admi- 
nistrative agencies except the Industrial Commission, cer- 
tain rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the Board 
of Bar Examiners of the North Carolina State Bar, the 
Board of State Contract Appeals, and the Property Tax 
Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie directly to 
the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Regardless of the 
amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction of 
the superior court does not include domestic relations 
cases, which are heard in the district courts, or probate 
and estates matters and certain special proceedings heard 
first by the clerk of superior court. Rulings of the clerk are 
within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. 

Administration 

The 1 00 counties of North Carolina were grouped into 
34 judicial districts during 1984-85. Each district has at 
least one resident superior court judge who has certain 
administrative responsibilities for his home district, such 
as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi- 
nal case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.) 
In districts with more than one resident superior court 
judge, the judge senior in service on the superior court 
bench exercises these supervisory powers. 



The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions for 
the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the 
map on Page 3 1 . Within the division, a resident superior 
court judge is required to rotate among the judicial dis- 
tricts, holding court for at least six months in each, then 
moving on to his next assignment. A special superior 
court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the 
100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are 
made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under 
the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions 
(a week each) of superior court are held annually in each 
of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have 
more than the constitutional minimum of two weeks of 
superior court annually. Many larger counties have 
superior court in session about every week in the year. 

Expenditures 

A total of $ 1 2,986,659 was expended on the operations 
of the superior courts during the 1984-85 fiscal year. This 
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 72 super- 
ior court judges, and salaries and expense for court repor- 
ters and secretarial staff for superior court judges. The 
1984-85 expenditures for the superior courts amounted to 
10.6% of total General Fund expenditures for the opera- 
tions of the entire Judicial Department during the 1984- 
85 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 85,569 
cases were filed in the superior courts during 1984-85, an 
increase of 5,01 1 cases (6.2%) from the total of 80,558 
cases that were filed in 1983-84. There were increases in 
filings for civil cases and for misdemeanor appeals, while 
filings for felonies decreased. 

Superior court case dispositions increased from 80,290 
in 1983-84 to 84,334 in 1984-85. There were increases in 
the number of dispositions for civil cases and for misde- 
meanor appeals, while dispositions for felonies decreased. 

More detailed information on the flow of cases through 
the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 



34 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1985) 



District 



1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City 
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Manteo 

2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington 
Samuel G. Grimes, Washington 
James W. Hardison, Wiliamston 

3 E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 
J. Randal Hunter, New Bern 

Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City 

James E. Martin, Bethel 

James E. Ragan, Oriental 

H. Horton Rountree, Greenville 

4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville 
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton 
James N. Martin, Clinton 

Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 

5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington 
Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington 

Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington 

6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 

7 George Britt, Tarboro 
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 
Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount 
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 

8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont 
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro 

9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 

10 George F. Bason, Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 
Narley L. Cashwell, Apex 
William A. Creech, Raleigh 
George R. Greene, Raleigh 
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh 
Philip O. Redwine, Raleigh 
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 



District 

1 1 Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield 
William Christian, Sanford 
K. Edward Greene, Dunn 
Edward H. McCormick, Lillington 

12 Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville 
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville 
Anna E. Keever, Fayetteville 
Warren L. Pate, Raeford 

Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville 

13 William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville 
Lee Greer, Jr., Long Beach 
Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City 
Robert W. Long, Shallotte 

14 David Q. LaBarre, Durham 
Karen B. Galloway, Durham 
Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham 
Richard Chaney, Durham 

15A J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 
W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham 
James K. Washburn, Burlington 

15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill 
Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill 
Donald L. Paschal, Siler City 

16 John S. Gardner, Lumberton 
Adelaide G. Behan, Lumberton 
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 

17A Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville 
Robert R. Blackwell, Reidsville 

17B Foy Clark, Mount Airy 

Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 

18 Thomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro 
Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro 
Robert E. Bencini, Jr., High Point 
William L. Daisy, Greensboro 
William K. Hunter, High Point 
Edmund Lowe, High Point 
J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro 
Paul T. Williams, Greensboro 

19A Robert L. Warren, Concord 
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis 
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 



*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



35 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1985) 



District 

19B L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
William M. Neely, Asheboro 

20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro 
Michael E. Beale, Southern Pines 
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe 
W. Reece Saunders, Jr., Rockingham 

21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem 
Lynn Burleson, Winston-Salem 
Joseph J. Gatto, Winston-Salem 
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Roland H. Hayes, Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 

22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville 
George T. Fuller, Lexington 
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville 

23 Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro 
Max F. Ferree, Wilkesboro 
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro 

24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland 
Charles P. Ginn, Boone 

R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 

25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton 
Edward H. Blair, Jr., Lenoir 
Daniel R. Green, Jr., Hickory 
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 



District 

26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte 
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte 
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
Theodore P. Matus, II, Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte 

27A J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia 

Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia 
Lawrence B. Langson, Gastonia 
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia 

27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby 
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton 
John M. Gardner, Shelby 

28 William Marion Styles, Black Mountain 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 

Robert L. Harrell, Asheville 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 

29 Robert T. Gash, Brevard 
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion 

Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville 
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville 

30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City 
John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy 

Danny E. Davis, Waynesville 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1985) 

Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem, President 

E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville, Vice President 

Earl J. Fowler, Arden, Secretary-Treasurer 

George M. Britt, Tarboro 
Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 

Additional Executive Committee Members 



'The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



36 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 
The District Courts 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with 
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the 
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 146 
district court judges serving in 34 judicial districts during 
1984-85. These judges are elected to four-year terms by 
the voters of their respective districts. 

A total of 623 magistrate positions were authorized as 
of June 30, 1985. Of this number, about 100 positions 
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by 
the senior resident superior court judge from nominations 
submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county, 
and they are supervised by the chief district court judge of 
their district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtually 
all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in most 
felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com- 
mitments and recommitments to mental hospitals, and 
domestic relations cases. The district courts have concur- 
rent jurisdiction with the superior courts in general civil 
cases, but the district courts are the proper courts for the 
trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy is 
$10,000 or less. Upon the plaintiff's request, a civil case in 
which the amount in controversy is $ 1 ,500 or less, may be 
designated a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief 
district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magis- 
trates are empowered to try worthless check criminal 
cases when the value of the check does not exceed $500. In 
addition, they may accept written appearances, waivers of 
trial, and pleas of guilty in such worthless check cases 
when the amount of the check is $500 or less, the offender 
has made restitution, and the offender has fewer than four 
previous worthless check convictions. Magistrates may 
accept waviers of appearance and pleas of guilty in traffic 
cases, and in boating, hunting and fishing violation 
cases,* for which a uniform schedule of fines has been 
adopted by the Conference of Chief District Judges. Mag- 
istrates also conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of 
release for arrested defendants, and they are empowered 
to issue arrest and search warrants. 

Administration 

A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial 
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 
among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub- 
ject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief 
judge exercises administrative supervision and authority 
over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in 
his district. Each chief judge is responsible for: scheduling 
sessions of district court and assigningjudges; supervising 
the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning matters to 



magistrates; making arrangements for court reporting 
and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge 
of clerical functions in the district courts. 

The chief district court judges meet in conference at 
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con- 
ference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and 
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks 
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance 
and guilty pleas. 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1985) 

Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville, Chairman 
Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford, Vice Chairman 



Expenditures 

Total expenditures for the operation of the district 
courts in 1984-85 amounted to $22,303,686. This is an 
increase of 12.4% over 1983-84 expenditures of 
$ 1 9,845,50 1 . Included in this total are the personnel costs 
of court reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel 
costs of the 146 district court judges and approximately 
623 magistrates. The 1984-85 totalis 18.3% of the General 
Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial 
Department, a 0.8% decrease from the percentage share 
of total Judicial Department expenditures that the dis- 
trict courts took for the 1983-84 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

During 1984-85 the statewide total number of district 
court filings (civil and criminal) increased 104,440 (7.2%) 
over the total number reported for 1983-84. Not including 
juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment 
hearings, the filing total in 1984-85 was 1,554,619. Most 
of this increase was attributable to inclusion, for the first 
time, of civil license revocation cases, which numbered 
58,093 filings during 1984-85. There were increases in 
filings in all other case categories as well, with the non- 
motor vehicle criminal case category registering the major 
increase: 29,754 cases (7.7%) more than the number of 
non-motor vehicle criminal cases in 1983-84. 

More detailed information on district court civil and 
criminal caseloads and on juvenile case activity is con- 
tained in Part IV of this Report. 



37 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 
(As of June 30, 1985) 



District 

1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City 

2 MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington 
3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville 
3B WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern 

4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville 

5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington 

6 DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro 

7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 

10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 

1 1 JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield 

12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

13 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Whiteville 

14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham 
15A GEORGE E. HUNT, Graham 

15B CARL R. FOX, Carrboro 

16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton 



District 

17A PHILIP W. ALLEN, Wentworth 

17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson 
18 D. LAMAR DOWDA, Greensboro 
19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Kannapolis 
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

21 DONALD K. TISDALE, Clemmons 

22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 

24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Marshall 

25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton 

26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte 
27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 

27B THOMAS M. SHUFORD, Jr., Lincolnton 

28 RONALD C. BROWN, Asheville 

29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton 

30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 



The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1985) 

William H., Andrews, Jacksonville, President 

David R. Waters, Oxford, Vice President 

Edward W. Grannis, Fayetteville, Vice President for 
Legislative Affairs 

Mike Nifong, Durham, Secretary-Treasurer 



38 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



The District Attorneys 



The State is divided into 35 prosecutorial districts 
which, with one exception, correspond to the 34 judicial 
districts. By act of the 1981 Session of the General 
Assembly, the 3rd Judicial District was divided into two 
separate prosecutorial districts. Prosecutorial Districts 
3A and 3B, effective October 1, 1981. Prosecutorial Dis- 
trict 3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecutorial Dis- 
trict 3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico 
(G.S. 7A-60). A district attorney is elected by the voters in 
each of the 35 districts for four-year terms. 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all criminal 
actions brought in the superior and district courts in his 
district. In addition to his prosecutorial functions, the 
district attorney is responsible for calendaring criminal 
cases for trial. 

Resources 

Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis 
the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by 
statute for his district. As of June 30, 1985, a total of 218 
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 35 
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26 
(Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff ( 19 assistants) 
and the district attorney of District 17B had the smallest 
staff (two assistants). 

Each district attorney is authorized to employ an 
administrative assistant to aid in preparing casers for trial 
and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district 
attorney in 18 of the 35 districts is authorized to employ 
and investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation 
of cases prior to trial, and in 10 districts, the district 
attorney is authorized to employ a witness coordinator. 

1984-1985 Caseload 

A total of 7 1 ,9 1 5 criminal cases were filed in the super- 
ior courts during 1984-85, consisting of 40,915 felony 
cases and 31,000 misdemeanor appeals from the district 
courts. The total number of filings in the superior courts 
(felonies and misdemeanors) in the previous year was 
68,076. The increase of 3,839 cases in 1 984-85 represents a 
5.6% increase over the 1983-84 total. 

Total criminal cases disposed of by the superior courts 
in 1984-85 amounted to 70,969. There were 40,603 felony 
dispositions; the number of misdemeanor cases disposed 
of was 30,366. Compared with 1983-84, total criminal 
case dispositions increased by 3,960 over the 67,009 cases 
disposed of in that fiscal year. 

The median ages of 1984-85 criminal cases at disposi- 
tion in the superior courts were 84 days for felony cases 
and 67 days for misdemeanor appeals. In 1983-84, the 
median age of felony cases at disposition was 80 days, and 



the median age at disposition for misdemeanor appeals 
was 65 days. 

Dispositions by jury trial in the superior courts, for 
felonies and misdemeanors, totalled 3,577 cases, or 5.0% 
of total criminal case dispositions in the superior courts. 
This was an increase from jury dispositions of 3,505 (5.2% 
of total dispositions) during the 1983-84 year. As is evi- 
dent, a very small proportion of all criminal cases utilize 
the great proportion of superior court time and resources 
required to handle the criminal caseload. 

By contrast, in 1984-85 a majority (37,910 or 51.8%) of 
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro- 
cessed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial. 
This was close to the 55.1% of guilty plea dispositions 
reported for 1983-84. 

"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signifi- 
cant percentage of all dispositions during 1984-85; a total 
of 18,652 cases, or 26.0% of all dispositions. This propor- 
tion is comparable to that recorded for prior years. Many 
of the dismissals involved the situation of two or more 
cases pending against the same defendant, resulting in a 
plea bargain agreement where the defendant pleads guilty 
to some charges in exchange for a dismissal of others. 

There was a decrease in the number of "Speedy Trial 
Act" dismissals in superior courts, from 82 in 1983-84 to 
71 in 1984-85. 

The total number of criminal cases disposed of in the 
superior courts was 946 cases less than the total number of 
cases filed in 1984-85. Consequently, the number of pend- 
ing criminal cases in superior court increased from 22,303 
at the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's end of 
23,249, an increase of 4.2%. 

The median age of pending felony cases in the superior 
courts decreased from 89 days on June 30, 1984 to 88 days 
on June 30, 1985. A decrease was also recorded for mis- 
demeanor appeals, with the median age of pending mis- 
demeanor appeals decreasing from 78 days on June 30, 
1984 to 72 days on June 30, 1985. 

In the district courts, a total of 1 , 1 84,528 criminal cases 
were filed during 1984-85. This total consisted of 771,994 
motor vehicle criminal cases and 412,534 non-motor 
vehicle criminal cases. A comparison of total filings in 
1 984-85 with total filings ( 1 , 1 5 1 , 1 83) in 1 983-84 reveals an 
increase in district court criminal filing activity of 33,345 
cases or 2.9%. Filings in the motor vehicle case category 
rose by 3,591 cases, from 768,403 cases in 1983-84 to 
771,994 cases in 1984-85, an increase of 0.5%. Filings in 
the non-motor vehicle case category rose by 29,754 cases 
(7.8%), from a total of 382,780 cases in 1983-84 to412,534 
cases in 1984-85. 

Total dispositions in district courts during 1984-85 in 
the motor vehicle criminal case category amounted to 
768,298 cases. As in prior years, a substantial portion 
(437,494 cases or 56.9%) was disposed of by waiver of 
appearance and entry of plea of guilty before a clerk or 



39 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



magistrate. This substantial number of criminal cases did 
not. of course, require action by the district attorneys' 
offices and should not be regarded as having been a part 
of the district attorneys'caseload. The remaining 330,804 
motor vehicle cases were disposed of by means other than 
a waiver. This balance was 10,852 cases, or 3.4% more 
then the 3 1 9,952 such dispositions in 1983-84. (The clerks 
of court no longer report motor vehicle criminal cases by 
case file number to the Administrative Office of the 
Courts. Only summary total number of filings and dispo- 
sitions are reported. Therefore, it is not possible by 
computer-proessing to obtain pending case data for the 
motor vehicle criminal case category.) 

With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo- 
sitions, a total of 402,274 such cases were disposed of in 
district courts in 1984-85. As with superior court criminal 
cases, the most frequent method of disposition was by 
entry of guilty plea; the next most frequent was dismissal 
by the district attorney. Some 136,968 cases, or 37.3% of 



the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An additional 
99,103 cases, or 27.0% of the total were disposed of by 
prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were disposed 
of by waiver (13.8%), trial (14.5%), or by other means 
(7.5%). 

During 1984-85, the median age at disposition of non- 
motor vehicle criminal cases was 27 days, compared with 
26 days at disposition for 1983-84. 

Total non-motor vehicle criminal dispositions were 
10,260 cases less than the total of such filings during 
1984-85. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases 
pending at year's end was 66,929, compared with a total of 
56,669 at the beginning of the year, an increase of 10,260 
( 18. 1%) in the number of pending cases. The median age 
for pending non-motor vehicle cases rose from 44 days on 
June 30, 1984 to 48 days on June 30, 1985. 

Additional information on the criminal caseloads in 
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



40 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 
(As of June 30, 1985) 



COUNTY 


CLERK OF COURT 


COUNTY 


CLERK OF COURT 


Alamance 


Louise B. Wilson 


Johnston 


Will R. Crocker 


Alexander 


Seth Chapman 


Jones 


Ronald H. Metts 


Alleghany 


Joan B. Atwood 


Lee 


Sion H. Kelly 


Anson 


R. Frank Hightower 


Lenoir 


Claude C. Davis 


Ashe 


Virginia W. Johnson 


Lincoln 


Nellie L. Bess 


Avery 


Robert F. Taylor 


Macon 


Lois S. Morris 


Beaufort 


Thomas S. Payne, III 


Madison 


James W. Cody 


Bertie 


John Tyler 


Martin 


Phyllis G. Pearson 


Bladen 


Hilda H. Coleman 


McDowell 


Ruth B. Williams 


Brunswick 


K. Gregory Bellamy 


Mecklenburg 


Robert M. Blackburn 


Buncombe 


J. Ray Elingburg 


Mitchell 


Arthur Ray Ledford 


Burke 


Major A. Joines 


Montgomery 


Charles M. Johnson 


Cabarrus 


Estus B. White 


Moore 


Rachel H. Comer 


Caldwell 


Jeanette Turner 


Nash 


Rachel M. Joyner 


Camden 


Catherine W. McCoy 


New Hanover 


Louise D. Rehder 


Carteret 


Mary Austin 


Northampton 


R. Jennings White, Jr. 


Caswell 


Janet H. Cobb 


Onslow 


Everitte Barbee 


Catawba 


Eunice W. Mauney 


Orange 


Frank S. Frederick 


Chatham 


Janice Oldham 


Pamlico 


Mary Jo Potter 


Cherokee 


Rose Mary Crooke 


Pasquotank 


Frances W. Thompson 


Chowan 


Marjorie H. Hollowell 


Pender 


Frances N. Futch 


Clay 


R. L. Cherry 


Perquimans 


W.J. Ward 


Cleveland 


Ruth S. Dedmon 


Person 


W. Thomas Humphries 


Columbus 


Lacy R. Thompson 


Pitt 


Sandra Gaskins 


Craven 


Dorothy Pate 


Polk 


Judy P. Arledge 


Cumberland 


George T. Griffin 


Randolph 


John H. Skeen 


Currituck 


Wiley B. Elliot 


Richmond 


Miriam F. Greene 


Dare 


Betty Mann 


Robeson 


Dixie I. Barrington 


Davidson 


Hugh Shepherd 


Rockingham 


Frankie C. Williams 


Davie 


Delores C. Jordan 


Rowan 


Francis Glover 


Duplin 


John A. Johnson 


Rutherford 


Joan M. Jenkins 


Durham 


James Leo Can- 


Sampson 


Charlie T. McCullen 


Edgecombe 


Curtis Weaver 


Scotland 


C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr 


Forsyth 


Frances P. Storey 


Stanly 


David R. Fisher 


Franklin 


Ralph S. Knott 


Stokes 


Pauline Kirkman 


Gaston 


Betty B. Jenkins 


Surry 


David J. Beal 


Gates 


Frank L. Rice 


Swain 


Sara Robinson 


Graham 


O.W. Hooper, Jr. 


Transylvania 


Marian M. McMahon 


Granville 


Mary Ruth C. Nelms 


Tyrrell 


Jessie L. Spencer 


Greene 


Joyce L. Harrell 


Union 


Nola H. McCollum 


Guilford 


James Lee Knight 


Vance 


Lucy Longmire 


Halifax 


Ellen C. Neathery 


Wake 


John. M. Kennedy 


Harnett 


Georgia Lee Brown 


Warren 


Richard E. Hunter, Jr. 


Haywood 


William G. Henry 


Washington 


Timothy L. Spear 


Henderson 


Thomas H. Thompson 


Watauga 


John T. Bingham 


Hertford 


Richard T. Vann 


Wayne 


David B. Brantly 


Hoke 


Juanita Edmund 


Wilkes 


Wayne Roope 


Hyde 


Lenora R. Bright 


Wilson 


Nora H. Hargrove 


Iredell 


Carl G. Smith 


Yadkin 


Harold J. Long 


Jackson 


Frank Watson, Jr. 


Yancey 


F. Warren Hughes 



41 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



The Clerks of Superior Court 



A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year 
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 coun- 
ties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special 
proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, in addi- 
tion to performing record-keeping and administrative 
functions for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court 
includes the probate of wills and administration of dece- 
dents' estates. It also includes such "special proceedings" 
as adoptions, condemnations of private property under 
the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to 
establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceed- 
ings to administer the estates of minors and incompetent 
adults. The right of appeal from the clerks' judgments in 
such cases lies to the superior court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue 
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and 
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered 
in the superior and district courts of his county. For 
certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is autho- 
rized to accept defendants' waiver of appearance and plea 
of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a sche- 
dule established by the Conference of Chief District 
Court Judges. 



Total expenditures for clerks' offices in 1984-85 
amounted to 30.5% of the General Fund expenditures for 
the operations of the entire Judicial Department. 

1984-85 Caseload 

During 1984-85, estate case filings totalled 40,733. This 
was an increase over the 39,477 cases filed in 1983-84. 
Estate case dispositions totalled 38,615 cases in 1984-86, 
or 3.2% more than the previous year's total of 39,872. 

A total of 33,283 special proceedings was filed before 
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1984-85. This is a 
decrease of 2,638 cases (8.6%) from the 30,645 filings in 
the previous fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions 
totalled 31,263 cases, or 7.8% more than the previous 
year's total of 29,007. 

The clerks of superior court are also responsible for 
handling the records of all case filings and dispositions in 
the superior and district courts. The total number of 
superior court case filings during the 1984-85 year was 
85,569 and the total number of district court filings, not 
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital com- 
mitment hearings, was 1,554,619. 

More detailed information on the estates and special 
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative 
duties for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court 
records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds, 
and the furnishing of information to the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. 

In most counties, the clerk continues to perform certain 
functions related to preparation of civil case calendars, 
and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the district 
attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as well. 
Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case calendar- 
ing is vested in the State's senior resident superior court 
judges and chief district court judges. However, day-to- 
day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's responsibility 
in all districts except those served by trial court ad- 
ministrators. 

Expenditures 

A total of $37,204,864 was expended in 1984-85 for the 
operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In 
addition to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks 
and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for jurors' 
fees, and witness expenses. 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1984) 

Major Joines, Burke County, 
President 

David J. Beal, Surry County 
First Vice President 

John Johnson, Duplin County 
Second Vice President 

Frances W. Thompson, Pasquotank County 
Secretary 

James L. Carr, Durham County 
Treasurer 



42 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



Juvenile Services Division 



The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and after- 
care services to juveniles who are before the District 
Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the crimi- 
nal code, including motor vehicle violations; and for 
undisciplined matters, such as running away from home, 
being truant, and being beyond the parents' disciplinary 
control. 

Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin- 
quent or undisciplined behavior by children, to determine 
whether petitions should be filed. During the 1 984-85 year 
a total of 20,7 1 7 complaints were brought to the attention 
of intake counselors. Of this number, 12,273 (59.2%) were 
approved for filing, and 8,444 (40.8%) were not approved 
for filing. 

Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of children 
in their own communities. Probation is authorized by 
judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juveniles 
after their release from a training school. (Protective 
supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision 
within the community; and this service is combined with 
probation and aftercare.) 

In 1984-85 a total of 14,849 juveniles were supervised in 
the probation and aftercare program. 



Expenditures 

The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The 
expenditures for fiscal year 1984-85 totalled $8,507,967. 
This was an increase of 8.5% over the 1983-84 expendi- 
tures. The 1984-85 expenditures amounted to 7.0% of all 
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire 
Judicial Department, close to the same percentage share 
of total Judicial Department expenditures for the Di- 
vision as in the previous fiscal year. 

Administration 

The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is 
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of 
the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for each 
judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile Ser- 
vices Division, with the approval of the Chief District 
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the 
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general supervi- 
sion, each chief court counselor exercises administrative 
supervision over the operation of the court counseling 
services in the respective districts. 



Juvenile Services Division Staff 
(As of June 30, 1985) 

Thomas A. Danek, Administrator 
Edward F. Taylor, Assistant Administrator 
John T. Wilson, Program Supervisor 
Jennie E. Cannon, Education Coordinator 



43 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



Juvenile Services Division 

(As of June 30, 1985) 



Judicial 




District 


Chief Court Counselors 


1 


Robert Hendrix 


2 


Joseph Paul 


3 


Eve C. Rogers 


4 


Ida Ray Miles 


5 


William T. Childs 


6 


John R. Brady 


7 


Nancy C. Patteson 


8 


Lynn C. Sasser 


9 


Tommy Lewis 


10 


Larry C. Dix 


11 


Henry C. Cox 


12 


Phil T. Utley 


13 


Jimmy Godwin 


14 


Fred Elkins 


15A 


Harry Derr 


15B 


Harold Rogerson 



Judicial 




District 


Chief Court Counselors 


16 


Robert Hughes 


17Aand 17B 


Martha Lauten 


18 


J. Manley Dodson 


19Aand 19B 


James Queen 


20 


Jimmy Craig 


21 


James J. Weakland 


22 


Carl T. Duncan 


23 


Wayne C. Dixon 


24 


Lynn Hughes 


25 


Lee Cox 


26 


James Yancey 


27A 


Yvonne Hall 


27B 


Gloria Newman 


28 


Louis Parrish 


29 


Kenneth Lanning 


30 


Betty G. Alley 



THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION 




(Officers for 1984-85) 




Executive Committee Members 




James J. Weakland, President 




Mark Vinson, President-elect 




Dianne Blanton, Secretary 




Larry Dix, Treasurer 




Frank Crawford, Parliamentarian 




Board Members 


1982-85 


1983-86 1984-87 


John Brady 


Fred Elliott Carl Duncan 


Mark Vinson 


Jan Dial Smith Eve Rogers 


Jane Clare 


Dennis Cotten Debbie Culler 



44 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 
Public Defenders 



During 1984-85, there were seven public defender offi- 
ces in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3,* 12, 
15B, 1 8, 26, 27 A, and 28. The public defender for District 
28 is appointed by the senior resident superior court judge 
from recommendations submitted by the district bar; for 
other districts, the appointment is by the Governor from 
recommendations of the respective district bars. Their 
terms are four years. Each public defender is by statute 
provided a minimum of one full-time assistant public 
defender and additional full-time or part-time assistants 
as may be authorized by the Administrative Office of the 
Courts. 



1984-85 Caseload 

The seven public defender offices disposed of cases 
involving a total of 19,086 defendents during 1984-85. 
This was an increase of 2,261 defendants, or 13.4%, over 
the 16,825 defendants represented during 1983-84. 

Additional information concerning the operation of 
these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report. 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 
(As of June 30, 1985) 



Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel 

A person is determined to be indigent if he is found 
"financially unable to secure legal representation." He is 
entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any pro- 
ceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief from) 
confinement; a fine of $500 or more; or extradition to 
another State; a proceeding alleging mental illness or 
incapacity which may result in hospitalization, steriliza- 
tion, or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile 
proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to 
superior court for a felony trial, or termination of paren- 
tal rights. 

Most of the cases of State-paid representation of indi- 
gents in the districts with public defenders are handled by 
the public defender's office. However, the court may in 
certain circumstances — such as existence of a potential 
conflict of interest — assign private counsel to represent an 
indigent defendant. In the other 28 districts, the assigned 
private counsel system was the only one used. 

Expenditures 

A total of $2,922,974 was expended for the operation of 
the seven public defenders' offices during 1984-85. This 
was an increase of $39 1 ,046 ( 1 5.4%) over the 1 983-84 total 
of $2,531,928. 



District 3 

Robert L. Shoffner, Greenville 

District 12 

Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville 

District 15B 
John Kirk Osborn, Chapel Hill 

District 18 

Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 

Isabel S. Day, Charlotte 

District 27A 

Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia 

District 28 
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 



"The public defender serves only two counties of the four in District 3: 
Pitt and Carteret. 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1985) 

Stephen W. Ward, President 

J. Robert Hufstader, Vice President 

Charles L. White, II, Secretary-Treasurer 



45 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 

The Office of the Appellate Defender 

(Staff as of June 30, 1985) 



Adam Stein, Appellate Defender 
Assistant Appellate Defenders 



Louis D. Bilionis 
David W. Dorey 
Robin E. Hudson 
Malcolm R. Hunter, Jr. 



Geoffrey C. Mangum 
Leland Q. Towns 
Gordon Widenhouse, Jr. 



The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to that 
date, appellate defender services were funded by a one- 
year federal grant.) The 1985 General Assembly made 
permanent The Appellate Defender Office by repealing 
its expiration provision. In accord with the assignments 
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the 
Appellate Defender and his staff to provide criminal 
defense appellate services to indigent persons who are 
appealing their convictions to the N. C. Supreme Court, 
the N. C. Court of Appeals, or to Federal courts. 

The Appellate Defender is appointed by, and carries 
out his duties under the general supervision of the Chief 
Justice. The Chief Justice may, consistent with the 
resources available to the Appellate Defender and to 
insure quality criminal defense services, authorize certain 
appeals to be assigned to a local public defender office or 
to private assigned counsel instead of to the Appellate 
Defender. 



1984-85 Caseload 

As of July 1 , 1984, the Appellate Defender had 34 cases 
pending in the North Carolina Supreme Court. During 
the 1984-85 year, a total of 65 additional appeals to the 
Supreme Court were assigned to the Appellate Defender's 
Office, and during that year a total of 32 cases in the 
Supreme Court were disposed of. This left 67 cases pend- 
ing as of June 30, 1985. During the 1984-85 year, the 
Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of 38 briefs 
and 42 petitions in the Supreme Court. 

As of July 1, 1984, the Appellate Defender had 170 
cases pending in the North Carolina Court of Appeals. 
During the 1984-85 year, a total of 239 additional appeals 
to the Court of Appeals were assigned to the Appellate 
Defender's Office, and during that year, a total of 193 
cases in the Court of Appeals were disposed of. This left 
216 cases pending as of June 30, 1985. During the 1984-85 
year, the Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of 
169 briefs and 26 petitions in the Court of Appeals. 



46 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 



The North Carolina Courts Commission 



(Members as of June 30, 1985) 



Appointed by the Governor 

H. Parks Helms, Charlotte, Chairman 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Ronald C. Brown, Asheville 
District Attorney 

Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Raleigh 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Rebecca B. Hundley, Thomasville 

Louise B. Wilson, Graham 
Clerk of Court 

Dennis J. Winner, Asheville 
Member, N. C. State Senate 

Appointed by President of the Senate 
(Lieutenant Governor) 

Anthony E. Rand, Fayetteville 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Fielding Clark, II, Hickory 

E. Lawrence Davis, III, Raleigh 

Earl F. Parker, Apex 
Magistrate 

R.C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City 
Member, N. C. Senate 

Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh 

Ex-Officio (Non-Voting) 

Kennieth S. Etheridge, Jr., Raleigh 
N.C. Bar Association Representative 

A.B. Coleman, Jr., Raleigh 
N.C. State Bar Representative 

Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh 
Administrative Officer of the Courts 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives 

David M. Britt, Raleigh 

Retired Associate Justice, N. C. Supreme Court 

Robert C. Hunter, Marion 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg 
Clerk of Court 

Hugh A. Lee, Rockingham 

Member, N. C. House of Representatives 

Marvin D. Musselwhite, Jr., Raleigh 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Appointed by the Chief Justice of the 
N.C. Supreme Court 

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh 
Associate Justice, N. C. Supreme Court 

Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 
Judge, N. C. Court of Appeals 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 
Superior Court Judge 

Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
Superior Court Judge 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
District Court Judge 

Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 
District Court Judge 



The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab- 
lished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continu- 
ing studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, 
procedures and personnel of the Judicial Department 
and of the General Court of Justice and to make recom- 
mendations to the General Assembly for such changes 
therein as will facilitate the administration of justice". 
Initially, the Commission was comprised of 15 voting 
members, with five each appointed by the Governor, the 
President of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor), and the 
Speaker of the House. The Commission also had three ex 
officio members as shown above. 



The 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes per- 
taining to the Courts Commission, to increase the 
number of voting members from 15 to 23, with the Gov- 
ernor to appoint seven voting members, the President of 
the Senate to appoint eight voting members, and the 
Speaker of the House to appoint eight voting members. 
The non-voting ex officio members remained the same: a 
representative of the North Carolina Bar Association, a 
representative of the North Carolina State Bar, and the 
Administrative Officer of the Courts. 

The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further 
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership 



47 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 
The North Carolina Courts Commission 



of the Commission. Effective July 1, 1983, the Commis- 
sion is to consist of 24 voting members, six to be 
appointed by the Governor; six to be appointed by the 
Speaker of the House; six to be appointed by the Presi- 
dent of the Senate; and six to be appointed by the Chief 
Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Gov- 
ernor continues to appoint the Chairman of the Commis- 
sion, from among its legislative members. The non-voting 
ex officio membership of three persons remains the same. 

Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be a 
Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of the 
Court of Appeals, two are to be judges of superior court, 
and two are to be judges of district court. 

Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a 
district attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of 
superior court, and three are to be members or former 
members of the General Assembly and at least one of 
these shall not be an attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to 
be members or formers members of the General Assem- 
bly, and at least one of these three is not to be an attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be 
members or former members of the General Assembly, 
and at least one is to be a magistrate. 

During the 1984-85 year the Courts Commission had a 
total of eleven meetings, with public hearings in Roanoke 
Rapids, Winston-Salem, and Raleigh. The public hearing 
in Raleigh was broadcast statewide over cable television. 
The purpose of these hearings was to give the public an 
opportunity to express their concerns or recommenda- 
tions about the court system. 

The following Commission proposals were approved 
by the 1985 Session of the General Assembly: 

• Statutory enactment creating a State Judicial Center 
Commission to study the present and future facilities 
needs of the appellate courts and the Administrative 
Office of the Courts (Chapter 698, H 1218). 

• Statutory amendment authorizing appellate judges 
to employ two research assistants instead of one 
(Chapter 698, H 1218). 



• Statutory amendments authorizing the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court to recall retired or emer- 
gency justices for service on the Court of Appeals, 
increasing authority of the Chief Justice to recall 
retired or emergency justices or judges to temporary 
service, and increasing compensation for emergency 
judges and justices (Chapter 698, H 1218). 

• Statutory amendment providing for permanent 
establishment of the Appellate Defender Program 
and to provide new positions in the Judicial Depart- 
ment (Chapter 698, H 1218). 

• Statutory amendment providing for initial randomi- 
zation of the biennial jury list in counties that rely on 
electronic data processing equipment for jury selec- 
tion (Chapter 368, S 268). 

• Statutory amendments to the court cost provisions 
enacted by the 1 983 General Assembly (Chapter 48 1 , 
H 534). 

• Statutory amendments categorizing numerous minor 
traffic offenses as infractions and providing for the 
courts to dispose of such infractions (Chapter 764, H 
533). 

The Courts Commission also proposed adding requests 
for admissions to the list of discovery materials in G.S. 
1 A-l , Rule 5(d) that need not be filed with the court. The 
bill, as introduced, was identical to that proposed by the 
Courts Commission, but the bill that ultimately passed 
provided that requests for admissions must in every case 
be filed with the court (Chapter 546, S 270). 

In addition, the Commission recommended a bill pro- 
hibiting employers from disciplining employees for serv- 
ing on a jury. This bill received an unfavorable report by 
the Senate Committee and so was never considered by the 
House. 

Finally, the Courts Commission recommended two 
bills to the 1985 Session calling for merit selection of 
judges. The two bills, which would have submitted a 
constitutional amendment to the voters and created a 
Judicial Nominating Commission responsible for imple- 
mentation of a nonpartisan plan for selection of judges, 
never emerged from committee. 



4X 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 

The Judicial Standards Commission 
(Members as of June 30, 1985) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Arnold, 
Fuquay-Varina, Chairman 

Superior Court Judge James M. Long, 
Pilot Mountain 

District Court Judge L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 



Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

E. K. Powe, Durham, Vice Chairman 
Rivers D. Johnson, Jr., Warsaw 



Appointed by the Governor 

Veatrice C. Davis, Fayetteville, Secretary 
Pamela S. Gaither, Charlotte 



Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 



July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established 
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional 
amendment approved by the voters at the general election 
in November 1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su- 
preme Court may censure or remove any judge for wilful 
misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to per- 
form his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a 
crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial 
office into disrepute. In addition, upon recommendation 
of the Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any 
judge for mental or physical incapacity interfering with 
the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to 
become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal 
involves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommenda- 
tion and supporting record is filed with the Court of 
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author- 
ity for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding 
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of 
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the 
Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chair- 
man of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or remov- 
al, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure 
known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism 
administratively developed for dealing with inquiries 
where the conduct involved does not warrant censure or 
removal, but where some action is justified. Since the 
establishment of the Judicial Standards Commission in 
1973, reprimands have been issued in thirteen instances 
covering 19 inquiries. 



During the July 1, 1984- June 30, 1985 fiscal year, the 
Judicial Standards Commission met on the following 
dates: October 5, 1984, March 1, 1985, and June 14, 1985. 
In addition, the Commission convened on November 29, 
1984 for a hearing. 

A complaint or other information against a judge, 
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the 
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an 
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge." Eight such inquiries were 
pending as of July 1, 1984, and 85 inquiries were filed 
during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total 
workload of 93 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 79 
inquiries, and 14 inquiries remained pending at the end of 
the fiscal year. 

The determinations of the Commission regarding the 
79 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as 
follows: 

(1) sixty-eight inquiries were determined to involve 
evidentiary rulings, length of sentences, or other 
matters not within the Commission's jurisdiction 
rather than questions of judicial misconduct; 

(2) two inquiries were determined to involve allega- 
tions of conduct which did not rise to such a level as 
would warrant investigation by the Commission; 

(3) seven inquiries were determined to warrant no 
further action following completion of preliminary 
investigations; 

(4) one inquiry was closed when the judge resigned 
from office; and 

(5) one inquiry was determined to warrant a recom- 
mendation of censure following a hearing in the 
matter. 



49 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1984-85 

The recommendation of censure filed by the Commis- (1) nine inquiries were awaiting initial review by the 

sion on January 15, 1985, in Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Commission; and 

No. 84 (Paul M. Wright, Respondent), was adopted by (2) five inquiries covered in five preliminary investiga- 
te Supreme Court on May 7, 1985. In re Wright, 313 tive files were awaiting completion of the investi- 
N.C. 495. 329 S.E. 2d 668 ( 1985). gation or were subject to other action by the 

Of the 14 inquiries pendingat theend of the fiscalyear: Commission. 



50 



PART III 
COURT RESOURCES 

• Financial 

• Personnel 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of 
the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts) 
"other than compensation to process servers and other 
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be paid 
from State funds. It is customary legislative practice for 
the General Assembly to include appropriations for the 
operating expenses of all three branches of State govern- 
ment in a single budget bill, for a two-year period ending 
on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The budget for the 
second year of the biennium is generally modified during 
the even-year legislative session. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided 
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments 
are required to provide from county funds for adequate 
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100 
counties. 



Appropriations from the State's General Fund for 
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of 
State government, including the Judicial Department, 
totalled $4,319,568,173 for the 1984-85 fiscal year. 
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria- 
tions from the General Fund for capital improvements 
and debt servicing are not included in this total.) 

The appropriation from the General Fund for the 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1984- 
85 was $121,035,791. As illustrated in the chart below, 
this General Fund appropriation for the Judicial De- 
partment comprised 2.8% of the General Fund appropri- 
ations for the operating expenses of all State agencies and 
departments. 



TOTAL GENERAL FUND 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OPERATING EXPENSES 

$4,319,568,173 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 

APPROPRIATION 

$121,035,791 



2.8% 



53 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Appropriations from the State's general fund for oper- 
ating expenses of the Judicial Department over the past 
six fiscal years are shown in the table below and in the 
graph at the top of the following page. For comparative 
purposes, appropriations from the general fund for oper- 



ating expenses of all State agencies and departments 
(including the Judicial Department) for the last six fiscal 
years are also shown in the table below and in the second 
graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department 



All State Agencies 



Fiscal Year 




% Increase over 




% Increase over 




Appropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


1979-1980 


71,616,057 


12.45 


2,761,002,481 


12.60 


1980-1981 


82,929,174 


15.80 


3,140,949,832 


13.76 


1981-1982 


89,631,765 


8.08 


3,339,761,674 


6.33 


1982-1983 


93,927,824 


4.79 


3,488,908,246 


4.47 


1983-1984 


106,182,188 


13.05 


3,730,497,565 


6.92 


1984-1985 


121,035,791 


13.99 


4,319,568,173 


15.79 


AVERAGE ANNUAL 










INCREASE, 1979-1985 




11.36% 




9.98% 



During the past decade, including the six-year period 
covered by the above table, inflation has been a signifi- 
cant factor in the national economy. 

The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart- 
ment appropriations during the last six years was for the 
1 980-8 1 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due in 
large measure to a 10% pay increase for Judicial Branch 
personnel, with the same pay increase provided for per- 



sonnel of all State government agencies. A 10% pay 
increase was also provided for the 1984-85 fiscal year. 

Fiscal year 1982-83 shows the smallest percentage 
increase in Judicial Department appropriations during 
the six-year period. The decline in percentage increase 
that year was consistent with a similar decline for all state 
government agencies. 



54 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



$130,000,000 

120,000,000 

110,000,000 

100,000,000 

90,000,000 

80,000,000 

70,000,000 

60,000,000 

50,000,000 

40,000,000 

30,000,000 

20,000,000 

10,000,000 





$4,500,000,000 

4,250,000,000 

4,000,000,000 

3,750,000,000 

3,500,000,000 

3,250,000,000 

3,000,000,000 

2,750,000,000 

2,500,000,000 

2,250,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

1,750,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

1,250,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

750,000,000 

500,000,000 

250,000,000 





General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of the Judicial Department, 1979-80 — 1984-85 



$121,035,791 



$82,929,174 



$' 


71,616,0! 


57 

































1979-80 




1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



General Fund Appropriations for Operational Expenses 
Of All State Agencies and Departments, 1979-80 — 1984-85 



1984-85 



$4,319,568,173 



$3,730,497,565 



$3,339,761,674 



$3,' 



$3, 


$2,' 


761,002/ 


181 











































$3,140,949,832 



1979-80 



1980-81 



1982-83 



1983-84 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 
Expenditures July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 

General Fund expenditures operating expenses of the $ 122,06 1,777, divided among the major budget classifica- 
Judicial Department during the 1984-85 fiscal year totalled tions as shown below. 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


1,845,637 


1.5 


2,518,083 


2.0 


12,936,659 


10.6 


22,303,686 


18.3 


37,204,864 


30.5 


8,507,967 


7.0 


14,639,125 


12.0 



Supreme Court 

Court of Appeals 

Superior Courts 

District Courts 

Clerks of Superior Court 

Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 

Representation for Indigents 

Assigned private counsel $9,391,157 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles $683,129 

Guardian ad litem — volunteer and contract program $527,489 

Public defenders $2,922,974 

Special counsel at mental hospitals $189,440 

Support services (expert witness fees, professional examinations, transcripts) $531,452 

Appellate Defender Services $393,484 
District Attorney Offices 14,187,377 11.6 

Office-District Attorney $14,099,541 

District Attorneys' Conference $487,836 
Administrative Office of the Courts 7,550,381 6.2 

General Administration $2,743,789 

Information Services $4,516,557 

Warehouse & Printing $290,035 
Judicial Standards Commission 94,280 .1 

Pilot Programs 223,718 .2 

Custody Mediation Pilot $68,875 

Outpatient Commitment Pilot $ 

Indigency Screening Pilot $37,343 

Dispute Settlement Center $1 17,500 

TOTAL $122,061,777 * 100.0 

♦General Fund expenditures exceeded General Fund appropriations by $1,025,986 which was funded from the non- 
reverting cash balance of the Indigent Persons' Attorney Fee account. 



56 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Expenditures, July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



DISTRICT COURTS 

18.3% 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
OF THE COURTS 

6.2% 

SUPERIOR COURTS 

10.6% 



CLERKS 
OF 

SUPERIOR 
COURT 

30.5% 




GUARDIAN AD LITEM 1.0% 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

11.6% 



COURT OF APPEALS 2.0% 
SUPREME COURT 1.5% 



LEGAL REPRESENTATION 
FOR INDIGENTS 11.0% 

JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 0.1« 
JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 7.0% 

PILOT PROGRAMS 0.2% 



As the above chart illustrates, most (91%) of Judicial 
Department expenditures goes for operation of the 
State's trial courts: operation of superior courts took 
10.6% of total expenditures; operation of the district 
courts (including magistrates, judges and court reporters) 
took 18.3% of the total; the clerks' office, 30.5%) of the 



total; and district attorneys offices, 1 1 .6% of total Judicial 
Department expenditures. 

The total General Fund expenditures of $122,061,777 
for 1984-85 represents a 17.5% increase over expenditures 
of $103,870,583 in 1983-84. 



$130,000. 

$120,000. 

$110,000. 
100,000. 
90,000. 
80,000. 
70,000. 
60,000. 
50,000, 
40,000, 
30,000, 
20,000 
10,000 



000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 
000 




General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department 
Fiscal Year 1979-80 - 1984-85 



$122,061,777 



$" 


1.077,5* 


)1 


































1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



1984-85 



57 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Department Receipts 
July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1984-85 
fiscal year totalled 569,064,408. The several sources of 
these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the 
previous years, the major source of receipts is the assess- 
ment of "court costs" in superior and district courts, paid 
by litigants in accordance with the schedule of costs and 
fees set out in G.S. 7 A-304 et seq.\ these payments consti- 



tuted 66.89% of the total receipts during 1984-85. Fines 
and forfeitures made up 29.28% of the total. Receipts in 
the remaining categories — Supreme Court and Court of 
Appeals filing fees, sales of Supreme Court and Court of 
Appeals Reports and payments on indigent representa- 
tion judgements — made up less than four percent of the 
total. 







%of 


Source of Receipts 


Amount 


Total 


Supreme Court Fees 


$ 10,640 


.01 


Court of Appeals Fees 


41,623 


.06 


Superior and District 






Court Costs 


46,194,346 


66.89 


Fines and Forfeitures 


20,223,923 


29.28 


Sales of Appellate 






Division Reports 


162,755 


.24 


Payments on Indigent 






Representation 






Judgements 


1,461,107 


2.12 


Ten-Day License 






Revocation Fee 


970,014 


1.40 


Total 


$69,064,408 


100.00 



This total of $69,064,408 is an increase of 8.6% over 
total 1983-84 receipts of $63,603,062. The graph below 



illustrates increases in 
Department receipts. 



recent years in total Judicial 



Judicial Department Receipts, 1979-80 — 1984-85 



S70,000,000 
60,000,000 



$69,064,408 



$63,603,062 



50,000,000 
40,000,000 
30,000.000 
20,000,000 
10,000,000 



1979-80 



$51,913,089 $53,493,060 $54,998,816 





1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



1984-85 



5X 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 
(July 1, 1984-June 30, 1985) 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penalties 
and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal cases 
are distributed to the respective counties in which the 
cases are tried. These funds must be used by the counties 
for the support of the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of court costs for civil and criminal 
cases, comprised of a variety of fees, is set by statute for 
cases filed in the superior and district courts. Statutes 
prescribe the distribution of these fees and provide that 
certain fees shall be devoted to specific uses. For example, 
a facilties fee is included in court costs when costs are 
assessed, and this fee is paid over to the respective county 
or municipality which provided the facility used in the 
case. These fees must be utilized by the counties and 
municipalities to provide and maintain courtrooms and 
related judicial facilities. 

Officer fees (for arrest or service of process) are 
included, where applicable, in the costs of each case filed 
in the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed these 
services in a case, the fee is paid over to the respective 
municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are paid to the 
respective counties in which the cases are filed. 

A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where 
applicable; and these fees are distributed to the respective 
county or municipality whose facilties were used. Most 



Remitted to State Treasurer 

Supreme Court Fees 

Court of Appeals Fees 

Sales of Appellate Division Reports 

Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 

Retirement Fund Fees 
Other Superior and District Court Fees 

Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 
Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Counties 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Municipalities 

Retained by Judicial Department 

Payments on Indigent Representation 

Judgements 

Ten-day license Revocation Fees 

Total retained by Judicial Department 
GRAND TOTAL 



jail facilities in the State are provided by the counties. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs when 
costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required by 
statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to the 
State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforcement 
Officers Benefit and Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court costs 
collected by the Judicial Department are paid into the 
State's General Fund, as are appellate court fees and 
proceeds from the sales of appellate division reports. 

When private counsel or a public defender is assigned 
to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case the 
trial judge sets the money value for the services rendered. 
If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien is entered 
against him for such amount. Collections on these judg- 
ments are paid into and retained by the department to 
defray the costs of legal representation of indigents. 

Proceeds from the ten-day driver license revocation fee, 
which driving-while-intoxicated offenders must pay to 
recover their driver licenses, are distributed to the coun- 
ties to defray the costs of weekend confinement of those 
persons convicted of driving while impaired. (Chapter 
698, Sec. 19, 1985 Session Laws) 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


10,640 


.01 


41,623 


.06 


162,755 


.24 


2,345,702 


3.40 


32,587,853 


47.18 


35,148,573 


50.89 


20,223,923 


29.28 


5,988,331 


8.67 


2,954,820 


4.28 


546,012 


.79 


29,713,086 


43.02 


285,319 


.42 


1,480,062 


2.14 


6,247 


.01 


1,771,628 


2.57 



1,461,107 


2.12 


970,014 


1.40 


2,431,121 


3.52 


69,064,408 


100.00 



59 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 




County 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Alamance 


97,331.00 


56,118.50 


16,918.70 


343,040.26 


-0- 


17,318.00 


-0- 


513,408.46 


Alexander 


13,860.00 


7,644.23 


4,426.14 


76,722.74 


-0- 


548.00 


-0- 


102,653.11 


Alleghany 


8.059.50 


3,528.00 


714.00 


28,525.00 


-0- 


444.00 


-0- 


40,826.50 


Anson 


26.417.00 


13,817.00 


1,707.00 


65,894.58 


-0- 


864.00 


-0- 


107,835.58 


\she 


14.291.50 


11,332.00 


707.00 


50,540.55 


-0- 


500.00 


-0- 


76,871.05 


Avery 


11,565.00 


8,388.00 


795.00 


39,214.00 


-0- 


140.00 


-0- 


59,962.00 


Beaufort 


44,292.00 


34,251.00 


12,129.00 


159,095.57 


-0- 


8,628.00 


-0- 


249,767.57 


Bertie 


20,736.00 


17,504.00 


1,595.00 


64,606.16 


-0- 


542.00 


-0- 


104,441.16 


Bladen 


34,105.00 


1,330.00 


713.00 


126,172.45 


1,428.00 


1,330.00 


-0- 


162,320.45 


Brunswick 


34,087.00 


17,777.00 


2,155.00 


196,224.91 


1,875.00 


1,804.00 


-0- 


250,243.91 


Buncombe 


170,116.58 


101,405.50 


5,912.05 


574,566.27 


-0- 


46,771.50 


-0- 


852,000.40 


Burke 


71,952.00 


36,505.00 


8,776.00 


234,719.12 


-0- 


7,966.00 


-0- 


351,952.12 


Cabarrus 


97,212.00 


71,161.00 


17,577.04 


303,579.97 


-0- 


11,372.00 


-0- 


489,530.01 


Caldwell 


54,550.54 


23,249.00 


3,091.00 


168,330.68 


-0- 


8,643.00 


-0- 


249,221.22 


Camden 


7,263.00 


5,768.00 


785.00 


35,049.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


48,865.00 


Carteret 


59,070.00 


29,676.00 


2,115.00 


236,360.26 


-0- 


13,604.00 


-0- 


327,221.26 


Caswell 


14,720.00 


13,139.00 


1,452.33 


75,396.60 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


104,707.93 


Catawba 


52,762.50 


36,134.50 


5,032.00 


289,833.00 


55,082.00 


26,335.00 


1,351.00 


383,762.62 


Chatham 


25,000.00 


23,887.00 


1,189.00 


95,110.52 


7,849.00 


2,882.00 


155.00 


145,186.52 


Cherokee 


13,539.00 


10,596.00 


5,261.00 


73,544.00 


-0- 


1,467.00 


120.00 


102,940.00 


Chowan 


14,306.00 


8,612.00 


994.00 


34,212.00 


-0- 


3,262.00 


-0- 


58,124.00 


Clay 


3,701.00 


2,716.00 


120.00 


14,211.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


20,748.00 


Cleveland 


69,456.00 


30,597.00 


5,932.00 


215,752.92 


-0- 


8,350.00 


-0- 


321,737.92 


Columbus 


46.476.00 


41,516.00 


4,012.00 


156,139.63 


3,130.00 


3,385.00 


100.00 


248,143.63 


Craven 


93,517.39 


31,107.90 


7,776.51 


277,537.85 


-0- 


26,741.00 


-0- 


409,939.65 


Cumberland 


264,307.68 


106,792.27 


29,542.80 


781,020.46 


-0- 


46,873.00 


-0- 


1,181,663.21 


Currituck 


14,108.00 


11,382.97 


1,485.00 


61,398.92 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


88,374.89 


Dare 


34,580.00 


18,192.97 


4,981.00 


232,942.02 


-0- 


9,260.00 


-0- 


290,695.99 


Davidson 


86,454.46 


65,330.17 


7,619.26 


418,598.90 


10,102.00 


6,770.00 


-0- 


578,002.79 


Davie 


18,883.00 


12,951.00 


497.00 


70,441.23 


-0- 


724.00 


-0- 


102,772.23 


Duplin 


36,465.00 


19,872.71 


2,212.00 


154,904.35 


-0- 


1 ,048.00 


280.00 


213,454.06 


Durham 


223,472.00 


58,984.00 


4,892.00 


489,938.26 


-0- 


81,908.63 


-0- 


777,286.26 


Edgecombe 


37,168.00 


46,516.00 


7,070.00 


114,229.62 


30,454.00 


16,040.00 


855.00 


204,983.62 


Forsyth 


280,338.75 


35,140.00 


19,916.00 


825,162.10 


2,954.00 


117,826.00 


-0- 


1,160,556.85 


Franklin 


23,780.00 


13,219.00 


3,617.00 


96,255.00 


-0- 


496.00 


-0- 


136,871.00 


Gaston 


141,918.25 


86,502.00 


11,697.00 


397,954.08 


-0- 


18,902.00 


-0- 


638,071.33 


Gates 


10,894.00 


7,562.00 


1,607.00 


49,003.48 


-0- 


24.00 


-0- 


69,066.48 


Graham 


4,244.00 


3,235.00 


2,740.00 


30,879.00 


-0- 


56.00 


-0- 


41,098.00 


Granville 


34,092.00 


13,563.80 


3,229.00 


111,502.13 


-0- 


5,200.00 


170.00 


162,386.93 


Greene 


14,286.00 


10,493.00 


1,029.00 


48,623.21 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


74,431.21 


Guilford 


402,110.25 


57,812.00 


16,656.00 


894,637.23 


-0- 


176,229.00 


-0- 


1,371,215.48 


Halifax 


57,232.00 


43,543.00 


7,811.00 


198,331.30 


3,963.00 


80,135.00 


25.00 


306,917.30 


Harnett 


39,879.50 


27,948.00 


9,939.00 


188,639.01 


7,467.50 


3,770.00 


110.00 


266.405.51 


Haywood 


43,286.00 


27,615.00 


5,598.66 


220,647.01 


526.00 


2,216.00 


65.00 


297,146.67 


Henderson 


55,138.00 


29,294.00 


10,208.00 


242,421.72 


65.00 


5,464.00 


-0- 


337,061.72 


Hertford 


27,924.00 


19,703.39 


3,250.00 


78,407.70 


-0- 


1,308.00 


-0- 


129,285.09 


Hoke 


20,826.00 


12,299.50 


3,425.00 


87,890.88 


-0- 


1,952.00 


-0- 


124,441.38 


Hyde 


5,057.00 


4,036.00 


1,361.00 


214,053.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


224,507.00 


Iredell 


65,209.50 


35,690.00 


1,193.00 


310,264.46 


11,938.00 


10,841.00 


464.00 


412,356.96 


Jackson 


17,705.00 


13,084.88 


4,588.00 


80,520.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


115,897.88 



* Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and muncipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who made 
the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise all officer 
fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by the courts within 
a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



60 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 




County 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Johnston 


61,283.61 


45,831.00 


18,292.00 


309,286.09 


11,212.00 


7,254.00 


150.00 


434,692.70 


Jones 


7,127.00 


4,363.00 


365.00 


22,469.50 


-0- 


784.00 


-0- 


34,324.50 


Lee 


45,657.00 


23,817.00 


12,937.65 


143,790.74 


-0- 


9,306.00 


-0- 


226,202.39 


Lenoir 


68,228.00 


27,943.00 


8,031.00 


226,711.99 


-0- 


12,070.00 


-0- 


330,913.99 


Lincoln 


31,449.00 


21,060.00 


365.00 


89,797.14 


-0- 


2,620.00 


-0- 


142,671.14 


Macon 


20,472.00 


15,193.07 


595.00 


86,944.00 


-0- 


484.00 


-0- 


123,204.07 


Madison 


10,951.00 


8,958.50 


50.00 


32,600.00 


-0- 


100.00 


-0- 


52,559.50 


Martin 


28,133.50 


20,260.00 


4,988.00 


77,657.41 


-0- 


2,152.00 


-0- 


131,038.91 


McDowell 


30,752.70 


19,774.00 


1,500.00 


122,103.49 


-0- 


2,252.00 


-0- 


174,130.19 


Mecklenburg 


503,977.18 


210,291.82 


78.00 


1,141,045.51 


-0- 


151,127.00 


-0- 


1,855,392.51 


Mitchell 


8,280.00 


5,767.00 


205.00 


24,825.00 


-0- 


300.00 


-0- 


39,077.00 


Montgomery 


37,098.00 


34,532.86 


3,094.00 


86,135.00 


-0- 


1,168.00 


-0- 


160,859.86 


Moore 


50,557.15 


34,972.00 


2,060.75 


213,207.27 


3,962.00 


7,104.00 


25.00 


300,797.17 


Nash 


46,501.00 


54,790.27 


7,622.00 


186,209.49 


39,839.00 


16,811.00 


780.00 


295,122.76 


New Hanover 


135,683.75 


42,467.61 


5,677.00 


431,422.75 


-0- 


33,688.00 


-0- 


615,251.11 


Northampton 


24,802.00 


21,164.34 


1,344.50 


91,593.17 


-0- 


1,332.00 


-0- 


138,903.01 


Onslow 


117,030.00 


59,272.00 


25,367.00 


423,213.65 


-0- 


38,015.00 


-0- 


624,882.65 


Orange 


40,871.00 


28,736.92 


5,882.50 


208,152.95 


26,468.00 


18,253.08 


643.00 


283,643.37 


Pamlico 


6,461.00 


5,252.00 


79.00 


26,088.34 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


37,880.34 


Pasquotank 


25,943.00 


11,800.00 


4,820.00 


132,632.78 


-0- 


8,415.00 


-0- 


175,195.78 


Pender 


21,296.50 


15,030.00 


2,966.00 


96,253.50 


-0- 


576.00 


-0- 


135,546.00 


Perquimans 


8,095.00 


4,747.00 


370.00 


25,535.13 


-0- 


1,294.00 


-0- 


38,747.13 


Person 


24,939.00 


19,277.00 


4,347.00 


90,607.35 


-0- 


1,878.00 


-0- 


139,170.35 


Pitt 


112,586.00 


33,449.00 


5,198.00 


398,229.90 


6,465.00 


41,693.00 


548.00 


549,462.90 


Polk 


11,001.00 


8,863.00 


1,772.00 


58,673.50 


-0- 


268.00 


-0- 


80,309.50 


Randolph 


77,091.25 


62,179.63 


6,284.00 


240,868.08 


1,405.00 


10,671.00 


-0- 


386,422.96 


Richmond 


39,263.00 


24,295.00 


5,221.00 


122,277.97 


-0- 


2,600.00 


-0- 


191,056.97 


Robeson 


99,814.85 


64,026.00 


13,092.00 


524,113.20 


30,207.00 


21,651.00 


298.00 


701,046.05 


Rockingham 


57,553.50 


33,317.00 


6,176.00 


313,590.00 


18,443.00 


16,777.00 


5.00 


410,636.50 


Rowan 


83,538.00 


54,324.42 


19,975.00 


306,567.57 


-0- 


18,691.00 


-0- 


464,404.99 


Rutherford 


48,662.00 


27,181.00 


6,852.26 


183,319.00 


-0- 


9,494.00 


-0- 


266,014.26 


Sampson 


52,723.00 


39,586.00 


4,413.00 


174,092.41 


-0- 


1,918.00 


-0- 


270,814.41 


Scotland 


38,767.00 


26,453.00 


2,905.00 


159,711.15 


-0- 


5,299.00 


-0- 


227,836.15 


Stanly 


43,621.07 


16,096.00 


3,511.76 


168,716.94 


-0- 


5,562.00 


-0- 


231,945.77 


Stokes 


21,080.50 


11,952.00 


2,649.00 


76,667.25 


-0- 


600.00 


-0- 


112,348.75 


Surry 


56,129.60 


45,159.06 


2,626.00 


169,020.51 


1,658.00 


6,391.00 


50.00 


272,935.17 


Swain 


6,754.00 


4,845.00 


956.00 


32,770.70 


-0- 


372.00 


-0- 


45,325.70 


Transylvania 


16,274.00 


13,841.53 


3,493.00 


63,600.67 


-0- 


2,136.00 


-0- 


97,209.20 


Tyrrell 


6,125.00 


4,375.00 


980.00 


16,989.50 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


28,469.50 


Union 


57,676.00 


40,664.00 


7,674.00 


197,333.81 


-0- 


9,590.00 


-0- 


303,347.81 


Vance 


41,577.00 


18,634.00 


7,259.00 


141,554.42 


-0- 


4,400.00 


-0- 


209,024.42 


Wake 


400,803.69 


82,215.61 


27,287.15 


1,195,705.89 


6,643.00 


183,428.64 


32.75 


1,706,012.34 


Warren 


15,537.50 


12,151.00 


2,735.00 


59,431.99 


-0- 


292.00 


-0- 


88,855.49 


Washington 


14,041.00 


10,138.00 


3,120.50 


35,982.00 


-0- 


924.00 


-0- 


63,281.50 


Watauga 


26,963.00 


19,448.33 


4,191.00 


137,978.85 


-0- 


2,222.00 


-0- 


188,581.18 


Wayne 


87,457.00 


47,594.00 


3,808.20 


271,228.16 


2,183.00 


19,181.00 


20.00 


410,087.36 


Wilkes 


55,789.50 


30,586.00 


4,825.00 


240,263.08 


-0- 


1,732.00 


-0- 


331,463.58 


Wilson 


64,570.00 


39,955.83 


5,171.03 


155,448.36 


-0- 


15,743.08 


-0- 


265,145.22 


Yadkin 


28,700.00 


21,305.00 


3,590.00 


128,810.87 


-0- 


972.00 


-0- 


182,405.87 


Yancey 


10,900.00 


8,363.00 


1,162.00 


29,651.50 


-0- 


532.00 


-0- 


50,076.50 


State Totals 


5,988,331.25 


2,954,820.09 


546,011.79 


20,223,923.26 


285,318.50 


1,480,061.93 


6,246.75 


29,713,086.39 



* Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and muncipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who made 
the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise all officer 
fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by the courts within 
a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



The State provides legal counsel for indigent persons in 
a variety of actions and proceedings, as specified in the 
North Carolina General Statutes, Sections 7A-450 e t seq. 
These include criminal proceedings, judicial hospitaliza- 
tion proceedings, juvenile proceedings which may result 
in commitment to an institution or transfer to superior 
court for trial as an adult. Legal representation for indi- 
gents may be by assignment of private counsel, by 
assignment of special public counsel (involving mental 
hospital commitments), or by assignment of a public 
defender. 

Seven of North Carolina's judicial districts have an 
office of public defender: Districts 3, 12, 15B, 18,26, 27A, 
and 28. The other 27 districts utilize only assignments of 
private counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in 
the seven districts which have a public defender in the 
event of a conflict of interests involving the public defend- 
er's office and the indigent and in the event of unusual 
circumstances when, in the opinion of the court, the 
proper administration of justice requires the assignment 
of private counsel rather than the public defender in those 
cases. 

During 1984-85, the Criminal Law Clinic of the School 
of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 
provided counsel services to indigents in 109 cases (no 
felonies), assigned by the courts in Orange County to the 
Clinic. These counsel services for indigents were provided 
by the Clinic at no cost to the Judicial Department. 

The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to 
October 1, 1981, appellate defender services were funded 
by a one-year federal grant.) Pursuant to assignments 
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the 
Appellate Defender and his staff to provide criminal 
defense appellate services to indigent persons who are 



appealing their convictions to either the Supreme Court 
or the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Defender is under 
the general supervision of the Chief Justice. The Chief 
Justice may, consistent with the resources available to the 
Appellate Defender and to insure quality criminal defense 
services, authorize certain appeals to be assigned to a 
local public defender office or to private assigned counsel 
instead of to the Appellate Defender. The case and cost 
data reported below reflect the activity of this office in 
both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1985. 

In addition, the State provides a full-time special coun- 
sel at each of the State's four mental hospitals, to repre- 
sent patients in commitment or recommitment hearings 
before a district court judge. Under North Carolina law, 
each patient committed to a mental hospital is entitled to 
a judicial hearing (before a district court judge) within 90 
days after the initial commitment, a further hearing 
within 180 days after the initial commitment, and there- 
after a hearing once each year during the continuance of 
an involuntary commitment. 

Finally, the State provides a guardian ad litem for 
children alleged to be neglected in juvenile petitions 
unless the court finds that the child is not in need of and 
cannot benefit from such representation. 

The cost of all programs of indigent representation, 
rounded to the nearest dollar, was $14,639,125 in the 
1984-85 fiscal year, compared to $12,673,701 in the 1983- 
84 fiscal year, an increase of 15.5%. The total amount 
expended for these activities was 12.0% of total Judicial 
Department expenditures in the 1984-85 fiscal year. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents for the fiscal year, July 1, 1984 
through June 30, 1985. 



62 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1984-June 30, 1985 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Capital offense cases 
Adult cases (other than capital) 
Juvenile cases 
Totals 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles 

Guardian ad ///em-volunteer and 
contract program 

Public Defender Offices 

* District 3 
District 12 
District 15B 
District 18 
District 26 
District 27A 
District 28 
Totals 

**Criminal Law Clinic, UNC 

Appellate Defender Office 

Special Counsel at mental hospitals 

Transcripts, records and briefs 

Professional examinations 

Expert witness fees 

GRAND TOTAL 



Number 
of Cases 

313 

36,955 

6,099 

43,367 

4,642 



Total 
Cost 

878,385 
7,864.627 

648,145 
9,391,157 

683,129 



527,489 



Average 
Per Case 



2,806 
213 
106 
217 

147 



1,371 


250,781 


183 


2,684 


552,025 


206 


568 


159,242 


280 


2,900 


637,011 


220 


8,116 


723,536 


89 


1,813 


324,989 


179 


1,634 


275,390 


168 


19,086 


2,922,974 


153 


109 






306 


393,484 

189,440 

441,791 

28,870 

60,791 

14,639.25 


1,281 



The Public Defender's Office serves only Pitt and Carteret Counties in Judicial District 3. 

"During 1984-85, the Criminal Law Clinic of the School of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, provided counsel 
services to indigents in 109 cases (no felonies), assigned by the courts in Orange County to the Clinic. These counsel 
services for indigents were provided by the Clinic at no cost to the Judicial Department. 



63 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Special Counsel at Mental Hospitals 
July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



The total cost of providing special counsel at each of 
the State's four mental hospitals, to represent patients 
in commitment or recommitment hearings, was $189,440 
for the 1984-85 fiscal year. There were a total of 10,135 
hearings held during the year, for an average cost per 
hearing of SI 8.69 for the special counsel service. 



The following table presents data on the hearings 
held at each of the mental hospitals in 1984-85. There 
were 687 more hearings held in 1984-85 than in 1983- 
84, an increase of 7.3% in total hearings. 









Dorothea 


John 






Broughton 


Cherry 


Dix 


Umstead 


Totals 


Initial Hearings resulting in: 












Commitment to hospital 


858 


1,210 


613 


1,296 


3,977 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


234 


263 


24 


61 


582 


Discharge 


879 


431 


531 


602 


2,443 


Total 


1,971 


1,904 


1,168 


1,959 


7,002 


First Rehearings resulting in: 












Commitment to hospital 


152 


279 


174 


432 


1,037 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


25 


10 


21 


11 


67 


Discharge 


49 


137 


31 


206 


423 


Totals 


226 


426 


226 


649 


1,527 


Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 












Commitment to hospital 


204 


326 


239 


613 


1,382 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


8 





7 


7 


22 


Discharge 


13 


12 


19 


82 


126 


Totals 


225 


338 


265 


702 


1,530 


Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting in: 












Commitment to hospital 


1 


6 


1 





8 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


4 


15 


23 





42 


Discharge 


6 


16 


4 





26 


Totals 


11 


37 


28 





76 


Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 












Commitment to hospital 


1,215 


1,821 


1,027 


2,341 


6,404 


Commitment to outpatient clinic 


271 


288 


75 


79 


713 


Discharge 


947 


596 


585 


890 


3,018 


Grand Totals 


2,433 


2,705 


1,687 


3,310 


10,135 



64 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



Number of Cases 



District I 



Camden 


21 


Chowan 


105 


Currituck 


74 


Dare 


108 


Gates 


24 


Pasquotank 


348 


Perquimans 


72 


District Totals 


752 


District 2 




Beaufort 


311 


Hyde 


43 


Martin 


208 


Tyrrell 


28 


Washington 


117 


District Totals 


707 


District 3 




Carteret 


52 


Craven 


717 


Pamlico 


47 


Pitt 


204 


District Totals 


1,020 


District 4 




Duplin 


253 


Jones 


29 


Onslow 


731 


Sampson 


338 


District Totals 


1,351 


District 5 




New Hanover 


993 


Pender 


75 


District Totals 


1,068 


District 6 




Bertie 


149 


Halifax 


447 


Hertford 


207 


Northampton 


177 


District Totals 


980 


District 7 





Expenditures 

5,925 
19,866 

21,782 
28,172 
4,334 
68,748 
11,821 

160,548 



82,326 
20,426 
47,771 
5,169 
24,937 

180,629 



24,774 

165,291 

12,643 

8 1 ,294 

284,002 



87,882 

5,475 

177,99 

100,619 

371,967 



Edgecombe 

Nash 
Wilson 

District Totals 



662 

532 
775 

1,969 



325,167 
20,959 

346,126 



34,564 
95,290 
43,881 
66,154 

239,889 



143,742 
127,970 
177,971 

449,683 



Number of Cases 

X 

4 
23 
13 

9 

72 
_5 

134 



26 
4 
12 
-0- 
_7 
49 



29 

63 

5 

40 

137 



46 

6 

155 

52 

259 



41 
_4 
45 



28 

22 
52 
22 

124 



33 

27 
24 

84 



Expenditures 

596 

239 
2,568 
1,181 

706 
5,868 

414 



11,572 



2,200 
393 

1,100 

-0- 

350 

4,043 



4,272 

10,280 

1,059 

8,457 

24,068 



6,600 

875 

13,125 

5,275 

25,875 



9,792 
415 

10,207 



1,920 
2,625 
3,654 
2,074 

10,273 



5,275 
4,830 

2,865 

12,970 



65 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 8 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Greene 

Lenoir 
Wayne 


152 

757 

1,076 


33,606 
133,214 

222,875 


3 

14 
18 


470 

2,727 
3,760 


District Totals 


1,985 


389,695 


35 


6,957 


District 9 










Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


265 
356 
238 
507 
126 


51,501 

75,437 
47,670 
98,932 
28,910 


14 
18 
16 

5 

7 


2.012 
2,485 
2,015 
1,400 
2,399 


District Totals 


1,492 


302,450 


60 


10,311 


District 10 










Wake 


3,091 


682,498 


168 


38,831 


District Totals 


3,091 


682,498 


168 


38,831 


District 11 










Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


387 
717 
372 


68,787 
90,720 
57,806 


29 
34 

32 


5,124 
4,236 
4,450 


District Totals 


1,476 


217,313 


95 


13,810 


District 12 










Cumberland 
Hoke 


173 
12 


79,205 

3,754 


212 
20 


15,716 
1,885 


District Totals 


185 


82,959 


232 


17,601 


District 13 










Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


341 
314 
606 


105,963 

66,279 

121,490 


13 

33 

73 


1,775 

4,633 

10,139 


District Totals 


1,261 


293,732 


119 


16,547 


District 14 










Durham 


2,179 


440,908 


105 


29,854 


District Totals 


2,179 


440,908 


105 


29,854 


District 15 A 










Alamance 


895 


184,638 


20 


2,350 


District Totals 


895 


184,638 


20 


2,350 


District 15 B 










Chatham 
Orange 


35 

244 


7,860 
35,365 


22 
46 


6,681 
5,095 


District Totals 


279 


43,225 


68 


11,776 


District 16 










Robeson 
Scotland 


1,176 
483 


224,034 
80,827 


156 
60 


9,132 
7,819 


District Totals 


1,659 


304,861 

66 


216 


16,951 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 17 A 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Caswell 
Rockingham 


149 
763 


38,796 
166,026 


16 
12 


1,275 
1,193 


District Totals 


912 


204,822 


28 


2,468 


District 17 B 










Stokes 
Surry 


162 

492 


44,072 
110,893 


9 
57 


915 
5,826 


District Totals 


654 


154,965 


66 


6,741 


District 18 










Guilford 


275 


80,531 


207 


27,298 


District Totals 


275 


80,531 


207 


27,298 


District 19 A 










Cabarrus 
Rowan 


652 
997 


150,590 
158,297 


59 
116 


8,350 
16,365 


District Totals 


1,649 


308,887 


175 


24,715 


District 19B 










Montgomery 
Randolph 


222 
564 


42,380 
112,035 


8 
93 


625 
9,665 


District Totals 


786 


154,415 


101 


10,290 


District 20 










Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


348 
545 
668 
380 
712 


71,992 
82,207 

100,276 
67,695 

128,205 


10 

70 

43 

48 

178 


1,800 
7,140 
4,050 
6,538 
18,765 


District Totals 


2,653 


450,375 


349 


38,293 


District 21 










Forsyth 


3,239 


495,990 


190 


22,830 


District Totals 


3,239 


495,990 


190 


22,830 


District 22 










Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


190 
730 
141 

783 


47,397 

195,078 

37,938 

177,924 


44 

183 

36 

77 


6,158 

30,882 

4,135 

12,028 


District Totals 


1,844 


458,337 


340 


53,203 


District 23 










Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


38 
125 
557 
158 


6,460 
23,386 
82,840 
38,895 


10 
29 

72 
18 


1,125 
3,075 
5,665 
1,735 


District Totals 


878 


151,581 

67 


129 


11,660 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 24 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


100 
92 
51 

185 
64 


30,987 
34,841 
19,295 
49,157 
10,843 


26 
29 

5 

17 

8 


8,841 
7,115 
550 
4,800 
2,850 


District Totals 


492 


145,119 


85 


24,156 


District 25 










Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


610 

630 

1,153 


136,490 
144,240 
198,449 


27 
14 
40 


8,557 
3,775 
7,676 


District Totals 


2,393 


479,179 


81 


20,008 


District 26 










Mecklenburg 


2,056 


552,895 


349 


110,574 


District Totals 


2,056 


552,895 


349 


110,574 


District 27 A 










Gaston 


97 


38,780 


98 


9,965 


District Totals 


97 


39,780 


98 


9,965 


District 27 B 










Cleveland 
Lincoln 


413 

255 


96,164 

64,271 


105 
8 


11,638 
860 


District Totals 


668 


160,435 


113 


12,498 


District 28 










Buncombe 


341 


72,421 


97 


9,120 


District Totals 


341 


72,421 


97 


9,120 


District 29 










Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 


429 
246 
63 
324 
129 


114,204 
54,571 
16,065 

73,723 
27,954 


44 
33 

6 
22 

4 


6,570 
5,880 
1,600 
2,800 
1,170 


District Totals 


1,191 


286,517 


109 


18,020 


District 30 










Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 


101 

15 

65 

270 

116 

274 
49 


21,307 
2,343 
10,711 
104,799 
17,151 
28,973 
34,499 


30 
17 
11 
55 
33 
14 
15 


2,588 
3,549 
1,809 
4,425 
2,271 
1,383 
1,360 


District Totals 


890 


219,783 


175 


17,355 


STATE TOTALS 


43,367 


$9,391,156 

M 


4,642 


$683,129 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 

(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1985) 



Positions 
Authorized 



7 
23 



12 

37 

12 



72 
77 
47 



146 

623 

29 

11 



35 

266 

85 



100 
1,500 



1 

7 
3 

7 
62 
21 

4 
4 

1 
16 

1 
8 



268 
45 



1 
127 



Salary Ranges 

SUPREME COURT 

Justices $ 65,856-67,248 

Staff personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, 

law clerks, library staff) $ 10,236-48,216 

Secretarial personnel $ 18,852-19,716 

COURT OF APPEALS 

Judges $ 62,352-63,744 

Staff personnel (Clerk's office, prehearing staff, 

Judicial Standards Commission staff, law clerks) $ 10,236-38,364 

Secretarial personnel $ 18,036-18,852 

SUPERIOR COURT 

Judges $ 55,368-57,192 

Staff personnel $ 17,232-32,916 

Secretarial personnel $ 11,184-21,612 

DISTRICT COURT 

Judges $ 44,832-46,620 

Magistrates $ 12,764-21,800 

Staff personnel $ 12,156-18,036 

Secretarial personnel $ 10,704-19,716 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

District Attorneys $ 51,504 

Staff personnel $ 13,872-56,976 

Secretarial personnel $ 10,704-19,712 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

Clerks of Superior Court $ 30,000-44,500 

Staff personnel $ 11,644-25,980 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

Appellate Defender 54,085 

Assistant Appellate Defenders $ 22,008-34,008 

Secretarial persormef —. $ 12,156-16,464 

Public Defenders $ 51,504 

Staff personnel $ 18-036-52,008 

Secretarial personnel $ 11,748-23,700 

Special counsel at mental hospitals $ 21,840-28,968 

Secretarial personnel $ 10,704-15,780 

Guardian and Litem, Program Administrator $ 31,416 

Program Coordinators $ 7,566-24,792 

Program Analyst $ 9,672 

Secretarial personnel $ 1 1,184-16,464 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

Court counselors $ 14,484-36,144 

Secretarial personnel $ 1 1,184-16,464 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

Administrative Officer of the Courts $ 57,192 

Assistant Director $ 46,620 

Staff personnel $ 11,184-53,004 



69 



PART IV 
TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 

• Superior Court Division 

• District Court Division 



TRIAL COURTS CASE DATA 



This part of the Annual Report presents pertinent data 
on a district-by-district and county-by-county basis. For 
ease of reference, this part is divided into a superior court 
division section and a district court division section. 

The data within the two sections generally parallel each 
other in terms of organization, with each section subdi- 
vided into civil and criminal case categories. With some 
exceptions, there are three basic data tables for each case 
category: a caseload inventory (filings, dispositions and 
pending) table; a table on the manner of dispositions; and a 
table on ages of cases disposed of during the year and ages 
of cases pending at the end of the year. Pending and age 
data are not provided for district court motor vehicle crim- 
inal cases, for civil cases (small claims) referred to magis- 
trates, and for juvenile cases, inasmuch as these categories 
of cases are not reported by case file number. 

The caseload inventory tables provide a statistical pic- 
ture of caseflow during the 1984-85 year. Items recorded in 
this table include the number of cases pending at the begin- 
ning of the year, the number of new cases filed, the number 
of cases disposed of during the year, and the number of 
cases left pending at the end of the year. The caseload 
inventory also shows the total caseload (the number pend- 
ing at the beginning of the year plus the number filed during 
the year) and the percentage of the caseload which was 
disposed of during the year. 

The aging tables show the ages of the cases pending on 
June 30, 1985 as well as the ages of the cases disposed of 
during 1984-85. These tables also show both mean (aver- 
age) and median ages for each set of cases — those pending 
at the end of the year and those that were disposed of during 
the year. The median age of a group of cases is, by defini- 
tion, the age of a hypothetical case which is older than 50% 
of the total set of cases and younger than the other 50%. 

Unlike the median, the mean age can be substantially 
raised (or lowered) if even a small number of very old (or 
very young) cases are included. For example, if only a 
single two-year old case was included among ten cases aged 
three months, the median age would be 90 days and the 
mean (average) age would be 148.2 days. A substantial 
difference between the median and average ages, therefore, 
indicates the presence of a number of rather long-pending, 
or short-pending, cases. 



Separate summary tables at the end of Part IV show the 
comparative rankings, for the 1984-85 year, in terms of 
percentage of disposition of caseloads for the 34 judicial 
districts and the 100 counties. 

The case statistics in Part IV have been calculated from 
filing and disposition case data submitted to the Adminis- 
trative Office of the Courts (AOC) by the 100 clerks of 
superior court across the State. The present case reporting 
system is primarily a manual one: weekly reports from each 
clerk's office are mailed to Raleigh, where they are 
computer-coded, entered and processed. Pending case 
information is computer-calculated from the filing and 
disposition data. The accuracy of the pending case figures 
is, of course, dependent upon timely and accurate filing and 
disposition data. 

Periodic comparisons by clerk personnel of their actual 
pending case files against AOC's computer-produced pend- 
ing case lists, followed by indicated corrections, is necessary 
to maintain completely accurate data in the AOC computer 
file. Yet, staff resource in the clerks' offices is not sufficient 
to make such physical inventory checks as frequently and 
as completely as would be necessary to maintain full accu- 
racy in AOC's computer files. Thus, it is recognized that 
some of the figures published in the following tables have 
errors of some degree. 

Another accuracy-related problem inherent in a manual 
reporting system is the lack of absolute consistency in the 
published year-end and year-beginning pending figures. 
The number of cases pending at the end of a reporting year 
should ideally be identical with the number of published 
pending cases at the beginning of the next reporting year. In 
reality, this is rarely the case. Experience has shown that 
inevitably some filings and dispositions which occurred in 
the preceding year do not get reported until the subsequent 
year. The later-reported data is regarded as being more 
complete reporting and is used, thereby producing some 
differences between the prior year's end-pending figures 
and the current year's beginning-pending figures. 

Notwithstanding the indicated limitations in the data 
reporting and data-processing system, it is believed that the 
published figures are sufficiently adequate to fully justify 
their use. In any event, the published figures are the best 
and most accurate data currently available. 



73 



PART IV, Section 1 



Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The Superior Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow during the 1984-85 year of 
cases pending, filed, and disposed of in the State's super- 
ior courts; that is, cases before superior court judges. 
Data is also presented on cases pending, filed and dis- 
posed of before the 100 clerks of superior court, who have 
original jurisdiction over estate cases and special pro- 
ceedings. 

There are, for statistical reporting purposes, three cate- 
gories of cases filed in the superior courts: civil cases, 
felony cases which are within the original jurisdiction of 
the superior courts, and misdemeanor appeals from the 
district courts to superior courts, for trial de novo. 

During 1984-85, as in previous years, the greatest pro- 
portion of superior court filings were felonies (47.8%), 
followed by misdemeanor appeals (36.2%) and civil cases 
(15.5%). The general trend over the past decade has been 
for increases in the total number of case filings. During 
1984-85, total case filings in superior courts increased by 
6.2% from last fiscal year (from 80,558 total cases to 
85,569). Misdemeanor appeal filings increased by 19.6% 
and civil filings increased by 9.4% over last year. For the 
second straight year, however, felony filings decreased, by 
3.0% in 1984-85. 

As in previous years, superior court civil cases generally 
take much longer to dispose of than do criminal cases. 
During 1984-85, the median age at disposition of civil 
cases was 314 days, compared to a median age at disposi- 
tion of 84 days for felonies and 67 days for misdemeanors. 
A similar pattern exists for the ages of pending cases. The 
median ages of superior court cases pending at the end of 
the fiscal year, June 30, 1985, was 236 days for civil cases, 
88 days for felonies, and 72 days for misdemeanors. 

These differences in the median ages of civil versus 
criminal cases in superior courts can be attributed in part 
to the priority given criminal cases. In criminal cases, a 
defendant has a right to a "speedy trial" guaranteed by 
both the United States and North Carolina Constitutions 
and by the North Carolina Speedy Trial Act (G.S. 15A- 
701 et seq.). The Speedy Trial Act requires cases to go to 
trail within 1 20 days of filing unless there has been justifi- 
able delay for one or more of the reasons set out in the 
statute. There is no comparable statutory standard for 
speedy disposition of civil cases in North Carolina, 
although the North Carolina Constitution does provide 
that "right and justice shall be administered without 
favor, denial, or delay" (Article I, Section 18, N.C. 
Constitution). 



Comparing 1984-85 median-age data with the same 
information from 1983-84, it is seen that there have been 
slight increases in the median age at disposition for all 
three case categories. From 1983-84 to 1984-85, the 
median ages at disposition increased slightly for civil 
cases, from 313 to 314 days; from 80 to 84 days for 
felonies; and from 65 to 67 days for misdemeanors. How- 
ever, for all three case types, the median ages of the 
caseload pending on June 30, 1985, were lower than the 
corresponding median ages for June 30, 1984. The 
median age of civil cases pending in the superior courts on 
June 30, 1985, was 236 days, compared to 271 days on 
June 30, 1984; for felonies, 88 days on June 30, 1985, 
compared to 89 days on June 30, 1984; and for misde- 
meanors, 72 days on June 30, 1985, compared to 78 days 
on June 30, 1984. 

For the first time, data are available to break the three 
major case categories (civil, felony, and misdemeanor) 
into more specific case types. 

Negligence cases comprised 45% of total civil filings in 
superior courts (6,144 of 13,654 total civil filings). Con- 
tract cases comprised the next largest category of civil 
case filing: 23.2% (3,167 filings). 

For the felony category, burglary (17.5%), larceny 
(17.0%), and controlled substance violations (16.4%) ac- 
counted for the largest numbers of felony filings during 
1984-85. 

Non-motor vehicle appeals comprised 54.2% of mis- 
demeanor filings in the superior courts, and driving while 
intoxicated cases comprised 20.4% of misdemeanor ap- 
peal filings. 

Tables which follow present data on the manner of 
disposition of superior court cases. Jury trials in superior 
court continue to account for a low percentage of case 
dispositions: 7.7% of civil cases (1,031 of 13,365 civil 
dispositions); 5.2% of felonies (2,121 of 40,603 felony 
dispositions); and 4.8% of misdemeanors ( 1 ,456 of 30,366 
misdemeanor dispositions). Nearly half (49.9%) of all 
civil dispositions were by voluntary dismissal (6,667 of 
13,365 dispositions). As in previous years, most criminal 
cases are disposed of by guilty plea; 63.2% of all felony 
(25,659 of 40,603), and 40.3% of all misdemeanor disposi- 
tions ( 1 2,25 1 of 30,366) were by guilty plea, with most of 
these being guilty pleas to the offense as charged. 



77 



SUPERIOR COURT CASELOAD 
July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



i 

H 

C) 

r 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 


F 

C 
A 

S 

F- 
S 



45 



30 



15 



Begin Pending 
Filings 
Dispositions 
End Pending 



40,915 



40,603 



13,592 13,654 13,365 13,881 



14,288 



3 1 ,000 



30,366 



14,600 



8,649 



CIVIL 



FELONIES 



MISDEMEANORS 



Compared to last year, filings increased during fiscal 
1 984-85 by 9.4% for civil cases and 19.6% for misdemea- 
nor appeals. Filings decreased for felonies by 3.0%. Sim- 
ilarly, dispositions increased for civil cases (by only 0.6%) 
and misdemeanor appeals (by 20.0%), and decreased for 



felonies (by 2.6%). The net result was that the number of 
cases pending on June 30, 1985 increased from the 
number of cases pending June 30, 1984, by 1.5% for civil 
cases, 1.4% for felonies, and 8.8% for misdemeanor 
appeals. 



78 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1975 - 1984-85 



T 
H 
O 

U 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 



o 

F 



C 
A 

S 
E 
S 



90 



80 



70 



60 



50 



40 



30 



20 



10 




Filings 



Dispositions 



End Pending # . .• # 

.• ••'" 



i i 



— i ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 

75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 



Filings and dispositions in the superior courts resumed along with the 19.6% growth in misdemeanor appeals, 

their earlier patterns after a decline during 1983-84. Civil Dispositions increased similarly, 

filings in the superior courts increased 9.4% over last year, 



79 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1975 - 1984-85 



i 

H 


u 
s 

•\ 

N 
I) 

S 



O 
F 



C 
\ 

s 

[ 
s 



20 



15 



End Pending . •• 




-• Dispositions 



—I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 

75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 



Civil filings in the superior courts increased for the first much, leaving an increased number of cases pending at 

time since 1 98 1 -82. Dispositions also increased, but not as year end. 



HO 



MEDIAN AGES OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 
Median Ages (in days) of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 



CIVIL 



FELONY 



MISDEMEANOR 




100 



200 



300 



400 



Median Ages (in days) of Cases Disposed of During 1984-85 



CIVIL 



FELONY 



MISDEMEANOR 



314.0 



84.0 



67.0 



100 



200 



300 



400 



The median age is the age with respect to which 50% of all 
cases in the category are younger and 50% of all cases are 
older than the median age; it is the 50th percentile of ages 
of all cases in the category. As shown in the above graphs, 
the median ages of all civil superior court cases pending 



and disposed during fiscal year 1984-85 are greater than 
the median ages of criminal superior court cases pending 
and disposed. This is due to civil cases taking longer than 
criminal cases to process. 



81 



FILINGS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS - BY TYPE OF CASE 
July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 





Other 




(1,918)^- 


Collection on Account 


A. 14.0% 


(1,123) , 


8.2% N. 


Administrative Appeal 1.8%/ 




(244) £-- 




Real Property 1 


7.8% Z^^l 


(1,058) \ 





Contract 
(3,167) 



23.2% 



15. 



29.2% 



Other Negligence 
(2,152) 



Motor Vehicle Negligence 
(3,992) 



For the first year, data are available to specify the case 
types given above. Almost half (45%) of the civil cases 
filed statewide during fiscal 1 984-85 were negligence cases 



(6,144 of the 13,654 total civil filings). Included in the 
"Other" category are nonnegligent torts such as conver- 
sion of property, civil fraud, and civil assault. 



X2 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 -June 31, 1985 





Be 


K in 




Pen 


ding 




7/1 


,84 


District 1 






Camden 




13 


Chowan 




31 


Currituck 




23 


Dare 




90 


Gates 




12 


Pasquotank 




52 


Perquimans 




25 





Total 


led 


Caseload 


6 


19 


23 


54 


55 


78 


102 


192 


11 


23 


63 


115 


9 


34 







End 




% Caseload 


Pending 


sed 


Disposed 


6/30/85 


9 


47.4 


10 


31 


57.4 


23 


3U 


38.5 


48 


89 


46.4 


103 


8 


34.8 


15 


54 


47.0 


61 


13 


52.9 


16 



District Totals 



246 



269 



515 



239 



46.4 



276 



District 2 



Beaufort 82 

Hyde 13 

Martin 34 

Tyrrell 7 

Washington 29 

District Totals 165 



78 
10 
38 
8 
34 



160 
23 
72 
15 
63 

333 



79 
7 

34 

7 

31 

158 



49.4 
30.4 
47.2 
46.7 
49.2 

47.4 



81 
16 

38 
8 

32 

175 



District 3 



Carteret 




137 


Craven 




193 


Pamlico 




16 


Pitt 




214 


District 


Totals 


560 


District 4 






Duplin 




91 


Jones 




19 


Onslow 




200 


Sampson 




74 


District 


Totals 


384 


District 5 







New Hanover 
Pender 



209 
31 



140 

195 

14 

278 

627 



81 
5 

229 
72 

387 



302 
28 



277 

388 

30 

492 

1,187 



172 

24 

429 

146 

771 



511 
59 



137 

194 

14 

228 

573 



72 

6 

177 

76 

331 



217 
21 



49.5 
50.0 
46.7 
46.3 

48.3 



41.9 
25.0 
41.3 
52.1 

42.9 



42.5 
35.6 



140 

194 

16 

264 

614 



100 
18 

252 
70 

440 



294 
38 



District Totals 
District 6 



240 



Bertie 


15 


Halifax 


59 


Hertford 


46 


Northampton 


28 


District Totals 


148 


District 7 




Edgecombe 


65 


Nash 


117 


Wilson 


81 


District Totals 


263 


District 8 




Greene 


15 


Lenoir 


151 


Wayne 


202 



330 



31 
66 
47 
27 

171 



91 
149 

123 

363 



30 

145 

206 



570 



46 

125 

93 

55 

319 



156 
266 
204 

626 



45 
296 

408 



233 



22 

56 
5 2 
25 

155 



82 
132 

100 

314 



32 
151 
L94 



41.8 



47.8 
44.8 
55.9 
45.5 

48.6 



52.6 
49.6 

49.0 

50.2 



71.1 
51.0 
47.5 



332 



24 
69 
41 
30 

164 



74 
134 
104 

312 



13 
145 
214 



District Totals 



368 



381 



749 



377 



50.3 



372 



83 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 31, 1985 





61 


;gin 




Pending 




7/1/84 


District 9 






Franklin 




47 


Granville 




J7 


Person 




M) 


Vance 




52 


Warren 




26 















End 




Total 






% 


Caseload 


Pending 


led 


Caseload 


D 


isposed 


D 


isposed 


6/30/85 


55 


102 




43 




42.2 


59 


63 


100 




38 




38.0 


62 


46 


76 




39 




51.3 


37 


56 


108 




46 




42.6 


62 


19 


45 




16 




35.6 


29 



District Totals 



192 



239 



431 



182 



42.2 



249 



District 10 
Wake 


1,038 


District 11 




Harnett 


92 


Johnston 


130 


Lee 


55 


District Totals 


277 


District 12 




Cumberland 


457 


Hoke 


15 


District Totals 


472 


District 13 




Bladen 


41 


Brunswick 


61 


Columbus 


138 


District Totals 


240 


District 14 




Durham 


390 


District 15A 




Alamance 


186 


District 15B 




Chathaa 


45 


Orange 


130 


District Totals 


175 


District 16 




Robeson 


141 


Scotland 


29 



1,124 



137 

241 

73 

451 



375 
9 

384 



42 
77 

108 

227 



464 



97 



61 

140 

201 



L57 

51 



2,162 



1,053 



229 


128 


371 


224 


128 


72 



728 



832 
24 

856 



83 
138 
246 

467 



854 



283 



106 
270 

376 



298 
80 



424 



329 
12 

341 



34 
49 
92 

175 



413 



1U9 



67 

144 

211 



L23 

31 



48.7 



55.9 
60.4 
56.3 

58.2 



39.5 
50.0 

39.8 



41.0 
35.5 

37.4 

37.5 



48.4 



38.5 



63.2 
53.3 

56.1 



41.3 
38.8 



1,109 



101 

147 

56 

304 



503 
12 

515 



49 
89 

154 

292 



441 



174 



39 
126 

165 



175 
49 



District Totals 

District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 

District Totals 



170 



8 
80 



31 

102 

133 



208 



21 

142 



163 



20 

117 

137 



378 



29 

222 



251 



51 

219 

270 



154 



11 
128 

139 



18 

140 

178 



40.7 



37.9 
57.7 

55.4 



74.5 
63.9 

65.9 



224 



18 
94 

112 



13 

79 

92 



K4 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 31, 1985 





Begin 












End 




Pending 




Total 




% 


Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/84 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


D 


isposed 


6/30/85 


District 18 
















Guilford 


1,470 


872 


2,342 


1,055 




45.0 


1,287 


District 19A 
















Cabarrus 


129 


94 


223 


120 




53.8 


103 


Rowan 


110 


133 


243 


128 




52.7 


115 



District Totals 



239 



227 



466 



248 



53.2 



218 



District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 



District Totals 



21 
148 

169 



13 

90 

103 



34 

238 

272 



15 
104 

119 



44.1 
43.7 

43.8 



19 
134 

153 



District 20 




Anson 


57 


Moore 


93 


Richmond 


73 


Stanly 


77 


Union 


145 


District Totals 


445 


District 21 





Forsyth 



562 



51 

148 

58 

50 

134 

441 



589 



108 


52 


241 


33 


131 


60 


127 


65 


279 


123 



886 



1,151 



383 



693 



48.1 
34.4 
45.8 
51.2 
44.1 

43.2 



60.2 



56 
158 

71 

62 

156 

503 



458 



District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 



28 

121 

32 

128 



34 
212 

39 
157 



62 


34 


333 


169 


71 


43 


285 


159 



54.8 
50.8 
60.6 
55.8 



28 
L64 

28 
126 



District Totals 



309 



442 



751 



405 



53.9 



346 



District 23 

Alleghany 

Ashe 

Wilkes 

Yadkin 



14 
26 

125 

34 



13 

41 

130 

36 



27 


17 


67 


46 


255 


135 


70 


46 



63.0 
68.7 
52.9 
65.7 



10 
21 

120 

24 



District Totals 



199 



220 



419 



244 



58.2 



175 



District 24 

Avery 39 

Madison 58 

Mitchell 34 

Watauga 72 

Yancey 10 

District Totals 213 



43 
S3 
24 
hi 
14 

196 



32 
111 

58 
134 

24 

409 



51 

38 
27 
74 

14 

204 



62.2 
34.2 
46.6 
55.2 
58.3 

49.9 



31 
73 
31 
60 
10 

205 



District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 



167 

no 

206 



115 
143 
271 



282 


152 


253 


130 


477 


261 



53.9 

51.4 
54.7 



130 
123 
216 



District Totals 



529 



1,012 



543 



53.7 



469 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 



2,170 



1,894 



4,064 



2,064 



50.8 



2,000 



85 



District 


27A 


Gaston 




District 


27B 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 31, 1985 



Cleveland 
Lincoln 



Begin 
Pending 

7/1/84 

293 



124 
59 



Filed 



479 



150 
55 



Total 
Caseload 

772 



274 
114 



Disposed 



421 



142 
67 



% Caseload 
Disposed 

54.5 



51.8 
58.8 



End 
Pending 

6/30/85 

351 



132 

47 



District Totals 



183 



205 



388 



209 



53.9 



179 



District 28 

Buncombe 



332 



455 



837 



472 



56.4 



365 



District 29 



Henderson 


153 


99 


252 


91 


36.1 


161 


McDowell 


60 


63 


123 


54 


43.9 


69 


Polk 


lb 


18 


34 


15 


44.1 


19 


Rutherford 


94 


94 


188 


71 


37.8 


117 


Transylvania 


51 


53 


104 


44 


42.3 


60 


District Totals 


374 


327 


701 


275 


39.2 


426 


District 30 














Cherokee 


32 


30 


62 


22 


35.5 


40 


Clay 


9 


10 


19 


9 


47.4 


10 


Graham 


15 


19 


34 


9 


26.5 


25 


Haywood 


119 


99 


218 


94 


43.1 


124 


Jackson 


82 


48 


130 


62 


47.7 


68 


Macon 


79 


58 


137 


52 


38.0 


85 


Swain 


30 


20 


50 


18 


36.0 


32 


District Totals 


366 


284 


650 


266 


40.9 


384 


State Totals 


13,592 


13,654 


27,246 


13,365 


49.1 


13,881 



86 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



TRIAL BY JURY (1,031) 



FINAL ORDER OR 

JUDGMENT WITHOUT 

TRIAL (JUDGE) 

(2,407) 



VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 
(6,667) 




TRIAL BY JUDGE (2,001) 



CLERK (768) 



OTHER (491) 



As in previous years, voluntary dismissals represent the largest 
proportion of dispositions of civil cases in superior courts. The 
next most prominent dispositions category, pretrial orders or 
judgments by a judge, include such matters as summary and 



consent judgments, and change of venue orders. The category 
"Other" includes miscellaneous dispositions such as discontinu- 
ance for lack of service of process under Civil Rule 4(e), dismis- 
sal on motion of the court, and removal to federal court. 



87 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Trial bv 



Jury 



Judge 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



Judge's 

Final Order 

or Judgment 

without Trial 



Clerk 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



1 
8 

10 

1 

1 
3 



4 
7 
9 

3b 
5 

21 
7 



2 

2 

7 

20 



9 

4 





4 

2 

11 


9 

1 




6 
2 

11 

4 

2 



9 
31 
30 
89 

8 
54 
18 



District Totals 16 
% of Total 6.7% 



38 

15.9% 



89 

37.2% 



44 
18.4% 



27 
11.3% 



25 

10.5% 



239 

100.0% 



District 2 
Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



District Totals 15 
% of Total 9.5% 



21 


o 
1 
2 

24 
15.2% 



39 


13 
4 

L5 

71 

44 . 9% 



7 
5 
9 
1 
9 

31 
19.6% 



3 
2 
2 

1 

8 
. 1% 



1 


5 

3 


9 

.7% 



79 

7 

34 

7 

31 



158 

100.0% 



District 3 



Carteret 


13 


Craven 


10 


Pamlico 





Pitt 


23 


District Totals 


46 


% of Total 


8.0% 


District 4 




Duplin 


8 


Jones 


1 


Onslow 


11 


Sampson 


3 


District Totals 


25 


% of Total 


7.6% 


District 5 





2 3 
7 
1 

37 

70 
12.2? 



2 



a 

26 

36 
10.9% 



New Hanover 
Pender 



17 
3 



11 
6 



63 

113 
6 

95 

277 
48.3% 



24 

3 

94 

32 

153 
46.2% 



88 
7 



17 

35 



52 

104 
18.2% 



22 
1 

4 3 
4 

70 
21.1% 



9 

21 

2 

15 

47 
3.2% 



11 


16 
8 

35 
10.6% 



10 
8 

5 
6 

29 

5.1% 



5 
1 
5 
1 

12 
3.6% 



137 

194 

14 

228 

573 
100.0% 



72 

6 

177 

76 

331 

100.0% 



79 

4 



217 

21 



District Totals 20 
% of Total 8.4% 



28 
11.8% 



95 
39.9% 



83 
34 . 9% 



10 
4.2% 



2 
0.8% 



238 

100.0% 



District 6 

Bertie 

Halifax 

Hertford 

Northampton 



2 
10 



29 
18 

1 1 



5 
1L 

19 

1 



2 
3 

lo 
2 



22 
56 
52 
25 



District Totals 
% of Total 



3 

1.9% 



22 
14.2% 



63 
40.6% 



36 
23.2% 



17 
11.0% 



14 
9.0% 



155 

100.0% 



District 7 
Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wilson 



7 

8 
LI 



42 
63 
44 



17 

34 

16 



6 

10 

7 



3 

9 

14 



82 

132 
100 



District Totals 26 
% of Total 8.3% 



23 

7.3% 



149 
47.5% 



67 
21.3% 



23 
7.3% 



26 

8.3% 



314 

100.0% 



XX 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 -June 30, 1985 



Trial by 



Jury 



Judge 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



Judge's 

Final Order 

or Judgment 

without Trial 



Clerk 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 




11 

9 



District Totals 20 
% of Total 5.3% 





24 
34 

58 
15.4% 



4 

73 
103 

180 
47.7% 



12 
29 
34 

75 
19.9% 





13 

11 

24 
6.4% 



16 

1 
3 

20 
5.3% 



32 
151 
194 

377 
100.0% 



District 9 



Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


1 

1 
2 
3 


District Totals 
% of Total 


7 
3.8% 


District 10 
Wake 

% of Total 


56 
5.3% 


District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 


16 
9 
6 


District Totals 
% of Total 


31 
7.3% 


District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 


21 
1 


District Totals 
% of Total 


22 
6.5? 


District 13 





Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



District Totals 20 
% of Total 11.4% 



District 14 




Durham 


38 


% of Total 


9.2' 


District 15A 




Alamance 


S 


% of Total 


7.3 


District 15B 




Chatham 


6 


Orange 


21 


District Totals 


27 


X of Total 


12.8 




5 
6 
11 
2 

24 
13.2% 



100 
9.5% 



14 
30 
13 

63 

14.9% 



71 
2 

73 
21.4% 



8 

3 
30 

43 
24.6% 



47 
11.4% 



24 
22.0% 



6 
10 

16 
7.6% 



25 
19 
21 
27 
8 

100 
54.9% 



466 

44 . 3% 



67 

82 

37 

186 
43.9% 



192 
8 

200 
53.7% 



14 
24 

38 

76 
43.4% 



200 

48.4% 



66 
60.6% 



33 
71 

104 
49.3? 



LI 

10 

6 

3 

2 

32 
17.6% 



313 

29.7% 



23 

39 

9 

71 
16.7% 



26 


26 
7.6% 



4 

12 

7 

23 

13.1% 



85 
20.6% 



8 
7.3% 



15 
24 

39 
13.5? 



4.4% 



72 
6.8% 




0.0% 



1 
4 
3 
3 


11 

6.0% 



46 
4.4% 



3 

2.8% 



5 
L4 

19 
9.0% 



43 
38 
39 
46 
16 

182 
100.0% 



1,053 
100.0% 



3 

49 
b 


5 
9 
1 


128 

224 

72 


58 
13.7% 


15 
3.5% 


424 
100.0% 


15 

1 


4 



329 

12 


16 
4.7% 


4 

1.2% 


341 
100.0% 



3 

4 


2 


4 


34 
49 
92 


7 
4.0% 


6 
3.4% 


175 
100.0% 


33 

8.0% 


10 
2.4% 


413 
100.0% 



109 
100.0% 



67 

144 

211 
100.0% 



89 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 





Trial by 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 




Jury 


Judge 


District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 


11 
4 


47 
2 


51 
13 


District Totals 
% of Total 


15 
9.7% 


49 
31.8% 


64 
41.6% 


District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 



13 



19 


6 

65 


District Totals 
X of Total 


13 
9.4% 


19 
13.7% 


71 
51.1% 


District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 




9 


6 
21 


17 
65 


District Totals 


9 


27 


82 


District 18 
Guilford 


63 


241 


590 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 


10 
21 


2b 
15 


12 
57 


District Totals 


31 


41 


129 


District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 


1 
6 


3 
2 2 


5 
51 


District Totals 
% of Total 


7 
5.9% 


25 
21.0% 


56 
47.1% 


District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


8 
2 
2 
6 

11 


5 
25 

14 
L3 
18 


21 
35 
22 
32 

7 1 


District Totals 
% of Total 


29 

7.6% 


75 
19.6% 


181 
47.4% 


District 21 
Forsyth 

% of Total 


54 
7.8% 


41 
5.9% 


392 
56.6% 


District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 


4 

13 

2 

16 



16 
14 
27 


18 
86 
16 
82 


District Totals 
% of Total 


35 
8.6% 


57 
14.1% 


202 
49.9% 



July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Judge's 

Final Order 

or Judgment 

without Trial 



14 
9.1% 



2 

11 

13 

9.4% 



9 
3 b 

45 



87 



6 
21 

21 



4 

19 

23 
19.3% 



15 

14 

4 

n 
ii 

58 
15.2% 



130 

18.8% 



7 

30 

7 

9 

53 

13.1% 



Clerk 



5 
2 

7 
4.5% 



2 

19 

21 
15.1% 



1 
9 

10 



47 



6 
5 

11 



Other 



2 

3 

5 

3.2% 



1 
1 

2 

1.4% 



27 



Total Dispositions 



123 
31 



154 
100.0% 



11 
128 

139 

100.0% 



38 

140 

178 



1055 



120 
128 

248 



1 

2 


1 

4 


15 

104 


3 

2.5% 


5 

4.2% 


119 
100.0% 


3 
6 
L5 

6 




3 

6 


52 
82 
60 
65 
123 


30 
7.9% 


10 
2.4% 


383 
100.0% 


55 
7.9% 


21 
3.0% 


693 

100.0% 



3 


2 


34 


11 


13 


169 


2 


2 


43 


19 


6 


159 


35 


23 


405 


8.6% 


5.7% 


100.0% 



90 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



Trial by 



Jury 



District 23 

Alleghany 

Ashe 

Wilkes 

Yadkin 



4 

2 

LI 

11 



District Totals 28 
% of Total 11.5% 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



District Totals 10 
% of Total 4.9% 



District 25 




Burke 


19 


Caldwell 


13 


Catawba 


13 


District Totals 


45 


% of Total 


8.3% 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


151 


% of Total 


7.3% 



Judge 



2 

9 
2 

13 

5.3% 



14 


2 
4 


20 

9.8% 



39 
6 

42 

87 
16.0% 



328 

15.9% 



Ju 


iy i, 


1984 - June 30, 

Judge's 
Final Order 


Voluntary 


or Judgment 


Dismi 


ssal 


without Trial 


4 




1 


18 




22 


80 




28 


20 




7 


122 




58 


50.0% 




23.8% 


25 




7 


9 




23 


12 




7 


42 




17 


10 




1 


98 




55 


48.0% 




27.0% 


83 




5 


72 




29 


127 




47 


282 




81 


51.9% 




14.9% 


1180 




384 


57.2% 




18.6% 



Clerk 



6 

.5% 



2.9% 



3 

5 
23 

31 

5.7% 



17 
0.8% 



Other 



5 
4 
2 
6 

17 
7.0% 



2 
2 

4 
5 
2 

15 
7.4% 



3 
5 
9 

17 
3.1% 



4 
0.1% 



Total Dispositions 



17 

46 

135 

46 



244 
100.0% 



51 

38 
27 
74 
14 

204 
100.0% 



152 
130 
261 

543 
100.0% 



2,064 
100.0% 



District 27A 
Gaston 

% of Total 



37 



65 
15.4% 



216 

51.3% 



64 
15.2% 



16 
3.8% 



23 

5.5% 



421 
100.0% 



District 27B 



Cleveland 


8 


35 


74 


Lincoln 


16 


6 


23 


District Totals 


24 


41 


97 


% of Total 


11.5% 


19.6% 


46.4% 


District 28 








Buncombe 


65 


103 


196 


% of Total 


13.8% 


21.9% 


41.6% 


District 29 









Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 



District Totals 19 
% of Total 6.9% 



17 
1 
1 

10 
6 

35 
12.7% 



47 
25 
7 
3b 
20 

135 
49.1% 



12 
17 

29 
13.9% 



65 
13.8% 



10 

18 

2 

17 
9 

56 
20.4% 



6 


7 


142 


5 





67 


11 


7 


209 


.3% 


3.3% 


100.0% 


24 


19 


472 


.1% 


3.8% 


100.0% 



4 


5 


91 





10 


34 


3 


1 


15 





1 


71 


4 


2 


44 


11 


19 


275 


4.0% 


6.9% 


100.0% 



91 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 -June 30, 1985 



Trial bv 



Jury 



Judge 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



Judge's 

Final Order 

or Judgment 

without Trial 



Clerk 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 30 




Cherokee 


3 


Clay 


1 


Graham 





Haywood 


: 


Jackson 


6 


Macon 


2 


Swain 


2 


District Totals 


16 


X of Total 


6.0% 



State Totals 
X of Total 



1,031 
7.7% 



6 

1 

1 

L6 

13 
7 
1 

45 
16.9% 

2,001 

15.0% 



8 

4 
3 

35 
L3 
26 
10 

99 

37 . 2% 



6,667 
49.9% 



4 

1 

2 
10 
24 
13 

4 

58 
21.8% 



2,407 
18.0% 




1 

31 
2 
2 


36 

13.5% 



768 
5.7% 



1 
1 
3 

4 
2 
1 

12 
4.5% 



491 
3.7% 



22 
9 
9 
94 
62 
52 
18 

266 

100.0% 



13,365 
100.0% 



92 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Tending June 30, 1985 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Curri tuck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



:12 

4 

16 

38 

65 

9 

44 



Ages of F'ending Cases (Months) 



District Totals 180 



% 

40.0% 
69.6% 
79.2% 
63.1% 
60.0% 
72.1% 
25.0% 

65.2% 



12-24 



11 



60 



26.7% 
18.0% 
43.8% 



21.7% 



• 24 



% 



5 


50.0% 


1 


10.0% 


3 


13.0% 


4 


17.4% 


6 


12.5% 


4 


8.3% 


2A 


23.3% 


14 


13.6% 



36 



13.3% 

9.8% 

31.3% 



13.0% 



Total 
Pending 

10 
23 
48 
103 
15 
61 
16 

276 



Mean Median 

Age (Days) Age (Days) 



367.3 
356.4 
263.4 
344.3 
352.9 
272.4 
601.9 



331.6 



390.0 
255.0 
208.0 
240.0 
283.0 
173.0 
518.0 



236.0 



District 2 



Beaufort 






51 


63.0% 


21 


25.9% 


9 


11.1% 


81 


311.7 


244.0 


Hyde 






7 


43.8% 


4 


25.0% 


5 


31.3% 


16 


500.9 


574.5 


Martin 






21 


55.3% 


11 


28.9% 


6 


15.8% 


38 


468.7 


323.0 


Tyrrell 






6 


75.0% 


2 


25.0% 





0.0% 


8 


304.9 


280.5 


Washington 




23 


71.9% 


6 


18.8% 


3 


9.4% 


32 


294.1 


166.0 


District 


Totals 


108 


61.7% 


44 


25.1% 


23 


13.1% 


175 


359.6 


250.0 


District 


3 






















Carteret 






101 


72.1% 


28 


20.0% 


11 


7.9% 


140 


290.3 


205.0 


Craven 






131 


67.5% 


42 


21.6% 


21 


10.8% 


194 


352.4 


221.0 


Pamlico 






9 


56.3% 


2 


12.5% 


5 


31.3% 


16 


472.7 


320.0 


Pitt 






191 


72.3% 


57 


21.6% 


16 


6.1% 


264 


274.5 


191.5 


District 


Totals 


432 


70.4% 


129 


21.0% 


53 


8.6% 


614 


307.9 


210.5 


District 


4 























Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



District Totals 272 
District 5 



57 


57.0% 


26 


26.0% 


17 


17.0% 


5 


27.8% 


6 


33.3% 


7 


38.9% 


67 


66.3% 


44 


17.5% 


41 


16.3% 


43 


61.4% 


18 


25.7% 


9 


12.9% 



New Hanover 
Pender 



216 
24 



District Totals 240 
District 6 



61.8% 



73.5% 
63.2% 

72.3% 



94 



21.4% 



74 



16.8% 



55 


18.7% 


23 


7.8% 


4 


10.5% 


10 


26.3% 



59 



17.8% 



33 



9.9% 



Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



District Totals 241 
District 8 



59 


79.7% 


103 


76.9% 


79 


76.0% 



12 


16.2% 


24 


17.9% 


17 


16.3% 



Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



10 
100 
143 



District Totals 253 



77.2% 



76.9% 
69.0% 
66.8% 

68.0% 



53 



17.0% 



18 



4.1% 
5.2% 
7.7% 

5.8% 



3 


23.1% 





0.0% 


41 


28.3% 


4 


2.8% 


47 


22.0% 


24 


11.2% 



100 
18 

252 
70 

440 



294 
38 

332 



91 



24.5% 



28 



7.5% 



74 
134 
104 

312 



13 
145 
214 

372 



399.6 
809.3 
369.5 
343.7 

390.3 



293.5 
509.2 

318.1 



221.0 
271.6 
287.2 

264.8 



220.5 
281.3 
347.8 

317.4 



291.5 
518.0 
234.0 
266.5 

268.5 



208.0 
304.0 

226.5 



Bertie 




21 


87.5% 


1 


4.2% 


2 


8.3% 


24 


253.6 


136.0 


Halifax 




50 


72.5% 


11 


15.9% 


8 


11.6% 


69 


386.1 


181.0 


Hertford 




26 


63.4% 


10 


24.4% 


5 


12.2% 


41 


353.0 


234.0 


Northampton 




18 


60.0% 


5 


16.7% 


7 


23.3% 


30 


416.4 


326.0 


District 


Totals 


115 


70.1% 


27 


16.5% 


22 


13.4% 


164 


364.0 


197.5 


District 7 























130.5 
184.5 
203.0 

178.5 



171.0 
241.0 
250.0 

243.5 



93 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 






<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 9 




















Franklin 


37 


62. 7% 


15 


25. 4% 


7 


11.9% 


59 


345.1 


261.0 


Granville 


51 


82.3% 


10 


16.1% 


1 


1.6% 


62 


231.4 


180.5 


Person 


32 


86.5% 


5 


13.5% 





0.0% 


37 


162.2 


110.0 


Vance 


40 


64.5% 


13 


21.0% 


9 


14.5% 


62 


354.9 


234.0 


Warren 


15 


51.7% 


9 


31.0% 


5 


17.2% 


29 


411.8 


298.0 



District Totals 175 



70.3% 



52 



20.9% 



22 



249 



299.8 



207.0 



District 10 




















Wake 


751 


67.7% 


262 


23.6% 


96 


8.7% 


1,109 


308.3 


227.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


87 


86.1% 


12 


11.9% 


2 


2.0% 


101 


182.3 


135.0 


Johnston 


124 


84.4% 


22 


15.0% 


1 


0.7% 


147 


188.4 


156.0 


Lee 


49 


87.5% 


7 


12.5% 





0.0% 


56 


173.0 


118.0 



District Totals 
District 12 



260 



(5.5% 



41 



13.5% 



1.0% 



District 14 



304 



183.5 



132.0 



Cumberland 


275 


54.7% 


136 


27.0% 


92 


18.3% 


503 


423.9 


334.0 


Hoke 


3 


25.0% 


7 


58.3% 


2 


16.7% 


12 


463.3 


424.0 


District Totals 


278 


54.0% 


143 


27.8% 


94 


18.3% 


515 


424.8 


338.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


29 


59.2% 


14 


28.6% 


6 


12.2% 


49 


363.9 


325.0 


Brunswick 


56 


62.9% 


25 


28.1% 


8 


9.0% 


89 


336.2 


276.0 


Columbus 


88 


57.1% 


40 


26.0% 


26 


16.9% 


154 


390.2 


315.5 


District Totals 


173 


59.2% 


79 


27.1% 


40 


13.7% 


292 


369.3 


304.0 



Durham 


319 


72.3% 


91 


20.6% 


31 


7.0% 


441 


277.0 


199.0 


District 15A 




















Alamance 


64 


36.8% 


56 


32.2% 


54 


31.0% 


174 


588.6 


509.0 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


38 


97.4% 


1 


2.6% 





0.0% 


39 


142.3 


129.0 


Orange 


99 


78.6% 


25 


19.8% 


2 


1.6% 


126 


232.6 


218.0 


District Totals 


137 


83.0% 


26 


15.8% 


2 


1.2% 


165 


211.3 


191.0 


District 16 




















Robeson 


122 


69.7% 


31 


17.7% 


22 


12.6% 


175 


307.7 


236.0 


Scotland 


38 


77.6% 


10 


20.4% 


1 


2.0% 


49 


265.8 


258.0 



District Totals 
District 17A 



160 



71.4% 



41 



18.3% 



23 



10.3% 



District Totals 



81 



88.0% 



1 1 



12.0% 



0.0% 



224 



92 



298.5 



178.5 



238.5 



Caswell 


18 


100.0% 





0.0% 





0.0% 


18 


187.1 


191.0 


Rockingham 


8 3 


88.3% 


10 


10.6% 


1 


1.1% 


94 


177.9 


124.5 


District Totals 


101 


90.2% 


10 


8.9% 


1 


0.9% 


112 


179.4 


143.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


1 1 


84.6% 


2 


15.4% 





0.0% 


13 


191.7 


124.0 


Surry 


70 


88.6% 


9 


11.4% 





0.0% 


79 


176.4 


157.0 



155.0 



94 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



District 18 
Guilford 



<12 



Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



626 48.6% 



12-24 



363 



>24 



28.2% 298 



23.2% 



Total 
Pending 



1,287 



Mean 
Age (Days) 



452.2 



Median 
Age (Days) 



377.0 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 71 68.9% 

Rowan 97 84.3% 



District Totals 168 77.1% 
District 19B 



23 
14 

37 



22.3% 
12.2% 

17.0% 



9 

4 

13 



8.7% 
3.5% 

6.0% 



Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 



40 

123 

38 

34 

103 

338 



375 



71.4% 
77.8% 
53.5% 
54.8% 
66.0% 

67.2% 



81.9% 



16 
20 
15 
47 

106 



79 



14.3% 
10.1% 
28.2% 
24.2% 
30.1% 

21.1% 



17.2% 



8 
19 
13 
13 

6 

59 



14.3% 
12.0% 
18.3% 
21.0% 
3.8% 

11.7% 



0.9% 



103 
115 

218 



56 

158 

71 

62 

156 

503 



458 



297.0 
213.9 

253.2 



319.5 
322.7 
466.7 
449.7 
291.8 

348.7 



219.8 



241.0 
170.0 

200.5 



Montgomery 
Randolph 


9 

72 


47.4% 
53.7% 


5 
34 


26.3% 
25.4% 


5 
28 


26.3% 
20.9% 


19 

134 


522.2 
465.0 


482.0 
346.0 


District Totals 


81 


52.9% 


39 


25.5% 


33 


21.6% 


153 


472.1 


353.0 


District 20 





















214.5 
189.0 
327.0 
308.0 
243.5 

226.0 



184.0 



District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 



25 
143 

21 
111 

300 



89.3% 
87.2% 
75.0% 
88.1% 

86.7% 



3 
18 

3 
12 

36 



10.7% 

11.0% 

10.7% 

9.5% 

10.4% 




3 
4 
3 

10 



0.0% 

1.8% 

14.3% 

2.4% 

2.9% 



28 
164 

28 
126 

346 



175.0 
187.3 
257.0 
208.0 

199.5 



131.0 
139.0 
127.0 
141.0 

139.0 



Alleghany 


8 


80.0% 


2 


20.0% 





0.0% 


10 


198.1 


181.0 


Ashe 


15 


71.4% 


4 


19.0% 


2 


9.5% 


21 


287.2 


152.0 


Wilkes 


92 


76.7% 


23 


19.2% 


5 


4.2% 


120 


252.4 


193.0 


Yadkin 


21 


87.5% 


2 


8.3% 


1 


4.2% 


24 


209.8 


105.5 


District Totals 


136 


77.7% 


31 


17.7% 


8 


4.6% 


175 


247.6 


179.0 


District 24 




















Avery 


24 


77.4% 


7 


22.6% 





0.0% 


31 


201.5 


166.0 


Madison 


48 


65.8% 


21 


28.8% 


4 


5.5% 


73 


291.8 


223.0 


Mitchell 


16 


51.6% 


13 


41.9% 


2 


6.5% 


31 


445.3 


360.0 


Watauga 


46 


76.7% 


12 


20.0% 


2 


3.3% 


60 


234.2 


227.5 


Yancey 


8 


80.0% 


1 


10.0% 


1 


10.0% 


10 


290.7 


264.5 


District Totals 


142 


69.3% 


54 


26.3% 


9 


4.4% 


205 


284.4 


226.0 


District 25 




















Burke 


80 


61.5% 


32 


24.6% 


18 


13.8% 


130 


369.3 


287.0 


Caldwell 


94 


76.4% 


20 


16.3% 


9 


7.3% 


123 


263.4 


153.0 


Catawba 


169 


78.2% 


29 


13.4% 


18 


8.3% 


216 


266.9 


170.0 


District Totals 


343 


73.1% 


81 


17.3% 


45 


9.6% 


469 


294.4 


192.0 


District 26 





















Mecklenburg 



1,272 



63.6% 



632 



31.6% 



96 



4.8% 



2,000 



315.8 



256.0 



95 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 




District 27A 


<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


Gaston 


306 


87. 2% 


39 


11.1% 


6 


1.7% 


351 


198.8 


166.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


109 


82.6% 


21 


15.9% 


2 


1.5% 


132 


230.5 


204.0 


Lincoln 


36 


76.6% 


10 


21.3% 


1 


2.1% 


47 


268.9 


237.0 



District Totals 145 
District 28 



Buncombe 



294 



81.0% 



80.5% 



31 



51 



17.3% 



14.0% 



20 



1.7% 



5.5% 



179 



365 



240.6 



258.7 



221.0 



160.0 



District 29 



Henderson 




73 


45.3% 


48 


29.8% 


40 


24.8% 


161 


499.2 


417.0 


McDowell 




53 


76.8% 


10 


14.5% 


6 


8.7% 


69 


304.9 


207.0 


Polk 




15 


78.9% 


2 


10.5% 


2 


10.5% 


19 


264.8 


121.0 


Rutherford 




74 


63.2% 


37 


31.6% 


6 


5.1% 


117 


328.3 


296.0 


Transylvani 


a 


39 


65.0% 


18 


30.0% 


3 


5.0% 


60 


314.8 


271.5 


District 


Totals 


254 


59.6% 


115 


27.0% 


57 


13.4% 


426 


384.4 


294.5 


District 3C 


i 




















Cherokee 




21 


52.5% 


16 


40.0% 


3 


7.5% 


40 


405.3 


363.0 


Clay 




6 


60.0% 


4 


40.0% 





0.0% 


10 


361.0 


332.0 


Graham 




13 


52.0% 


10 


40.0% 


2 


8.0% 


25 


346.3 


289.0 


Haywood 




61 


49.2% 


42 


33.9% 


21 


16.9% 


124 


423.3 


367.5 


Jackson 




35 


51.5% 


14 


20.6% 


19 


27.9% 


68 


533.3 


351.5 


Macon 




41 


48.2% 


31 


36.5% 


13 


15.3% 


85 


450.7 


368.0 


Swain 




16 


50.0% 


7 


21.9% 


9 


28.1% 


32 


530.3 


370.0 


District 


Totals 


193 


50.3% 


124 


32.3% 


67 


17.4% 


384 


449.3 


363.0 


State Total 


s 9 


,313 


67.1% 


3,187 


23.0% 


1,381 


9.9% 


13,881 


325.1 


236.0 



96 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



<12 



12-24 



% 



>24 



District 1 



Camden 


3 


33.3% 


2 


22.2% 


4 


44.4% 


Chowan 


13 


41.9% 


8 


25.8% 


10 


32.3% 


Curri tuck 


24 


80.0% 


3 


10.0% 


3 


10.0% 


Dare 


49 


55.1% 


19 


21.3% 


21 


23.6% 


Gates 


5 


62.5% 


2 


25.0% 


1 


12.5% 


Pasquotank 


28 


51.9% 


22 


40.7% 


4 


7.4% 


Perquimans 


8 


44.4% 


5 


27.8% 


5 


27.8% 


District Totals 


130 


54.4% 


61 


25.5% 


48 


20.1% 


District 2 














Beaufort 


49 


62.0% 


21 


26.6% 


9 


11.4% 


Hyde 


4 


57.1% 


1 


14.3% 


2 


28.6% 


Martin 


25 


73.5% 


7 


20.6% 


2 


5.9% 


Tyrrell 


2 


28.6% 


2 


28.6% 


3 


42.9% 


Washington 


16 


51.6% 


12 


38.7% 


3 


9.7% 


District Totals 


96 


60.8% 


43 


27.2% 


19 


12.0% 


District 3 














Carteret 


71 


51.8% 


39 


28.5% 


27 


19.7% 


Craven 


121 


62.4% 


48 


24.7% 


25 


12.9% 


Pamlico 


9 


64.3% 


3 


21.4% 


2 


14.3% 


Pitt 


146 


64.0% 


59 


25.9% 


23 


10.1% 


District Totals 


347 


60.6% 


149 


26.0% 


77 


13.4% 


District 4 














Duplin 


40 


55.6% 


18 


25.0% 


14 


19.4% 


Jones 


1 


16.7% 


4 


66.7% 


1 


16.7% 


Onslow 


99 


55.9% 


48 


27.1% 


30 


16.9% 


Sampson 


47 


61.8% 


19 


25.0% 


10 


13.2% 


District Totals 


187 


56.5% 


89 


26.9% 


55 


16.6% 


District 5 














New Hanover 


133 


61.3% 


44 


20.3% 


40 


18.4% 


Pender 


8 


38.1% 


5 


23.8% 


8 


38.1% 


District Totals 


141 


59.2% 


49 


20.6% 


48 


20.2% 


District 6 














Bertie 


15 


68.2% 


6 


27.3% 


1 


4.5% 


Halifax 


31 


55.4% 


17 


30.4% 


8 


14.3% 


Hertford 


37 


71.2% 


10 


19.2% 


5 


9.6% 


Northampton 


16 


64.0% 


7 


28.0% 


2 


8.0% 


District Totals 


99 


63.9% 


40 


25.8% 


16 


10.3% 


District 7 














Edgecombe 


60 


73.2% 


17 


20.7% 


5 


6.1% 


Nash 


79 


59.8% 


34 


25.8% 


19 


14.4% 


Wilson 


56 


56.0% 


32 


32.0% 


12 


12.0% 


District Totals 


195 


62.1% 


83 


26.4% 


36 


11.5% 


District 8 















Total 
Disposed 



9 
31 
30 
89 

8 
54 
18 



Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



28 

79 

110 



District Totals 217 



57.5% 
52.3% 
56.7% 

57.6% 



3 
60 
61 

124 



9.4% 
39.7% 
31.4% 

32.9% 



1 
12 
23 

36 



3.1% 

7.9% 

11.9% 

9.5% 



239 



79 

7 
34 

7 
31 

158 



137 

194 

14 

228 

573 



72 

6 

177 

76 

331 



217 
21 

238 



22 
56 
52 
25 

155 



82 
132 
100 

314 



32 
151 
194 

377 



Mean 
Age (Days) 



681.0 
832.6 
304.4 
475.0 
355.1 
342.3 
543.2 

478.9 



378.1 
381.1 
294.9 
709.0 
347.9 

369.1 



420.6 
381.2 
365.8 
332.6 

370.9 



440.9 
519.7 
420.4 
337.5 

407.6 



375.0 
654.3 

399.7 



348.5 
443.9 
338.3 
305.2 

372.5 



280.6 
369.8 
359.8 

343.3 



168.9 
366.0 
389.5 

361.4 



Median 
Age (Days) 



498.0 
445.0 
192.0 
293.0 
263.5 
304.5 
469.5 

301.0 



305.0 
334.0 
278.5 
533.0 
301.0 

297.0 



338.0 
295.5 
234.5 
243.5 

281.0 



303.5 
529.5 
333.0 
277.5 

315.0 



263.0 
590.0 

272.0 



299.5 
337.5 
208.0 
245.0 

277.0 



208.5 
276.0 
302.5 

261.5 



109.5 
325.0 
314.0 

297.0 



97 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 






<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Day 


District 9 




















Franklin 


28 


65.1% 


10 


23.3% 


5 


11.6% 


43 


311.3 


223.0 


Granvi lie 


18 


47.4% 


13 


34.2% 


7 


18.4% 


38 


432.1 


399.5 


Person 


26 


66.7% 


12 


30.8% 


1 


2.6% 


39 


259.4 


210.0 


Vance 


23 


50.0% 


16 


34.8% 


7 


15.2% 


46 


386.4 


346.5 


Warren 


10 


62.5% 


3 


18.8% 


3 


18.8% 


16 


408.8 


311.5 



District Totals 105 57.7% 54 29.7% 23 12.6% 182 352.9 298.0 



District 10 




















Wake 


612 


58.1% 


322 


30.6% 


119 


11.3% 


1,053 


362.4 


299.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


90 


70.3% 


32 


25.0% 


6 


4.7% 


128 


284.7 


255.0 


Johnston 


180 


80.4% 


38 


17.0% 


6 


2.7% 


224 


210.9 


146.5 


Lee 


54 


75.0% 


13 


18.1% 


5 


6.9% 


72 


278.0 


223.5 



District Totals 324 76.4% 83 19.6% 17 4.0% 424 244.6 191.5 

District 12 



Cumberland 


168 


51.1% 


104 


31.6% 


57 


17.3% 


329 


417.2 


359.0 


Hoke 


12 


100.0% 





0.0% 





0.0% 


12 


156.7 


130.0 


District Totals 


180 


52.8% 


104 


30.5% 


57 


16.7% 


341 


408.1 


351.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


20 


58.8% 


11 


32.4% 


3 


8.8% 


34 


381.6 


323.0 


Brunswick 


26 


53.1% 


16 


32.7% 


7 


14.3% 


49 


384.3 


363.0 


Columbus 


A2 


45.7% 


23 


25.0% 


27 


29.3% 


92 


518.1 


394.5 



District Totals 88 50.3% 50 28.6% 37 21.1% 175 454.1 365.0 

District 14 

Durham 259 62.7% 122 29.5% 32 7.7% 413 325.5 266.0 

District 15A 

Alamance 48 44.0% 34 31.2% 27 24.8% 109 503.8 399.0 

District 15B 

Chatham 47 70.1% 15 22.4% 5 7.5% 67 298.7 271.0 

Orange 83 57.6% 51 35.4% 10 6.9% 144 357.3 329.5 

District Totals 130 61.6% 66 31.3% 15 7.1% 211 338.7 296.0 

District 16 

Robeson 63 51.2% 36 29.3% 24 19.5% 123 439.4 345.0 

Scotland 27 87.1% 2 6.5% 2 6.5% 31 238.5 186.0 

District Totals 90 58.4% 38 24.7% 26 16.9% 154 399.0 302.5 

District 17A 



Caswell 


10 


90.9% 


] 


9.1% 





0.0% 


11 


232.0 


246.0 


Rockingham 


107 


83.6% 


18 


14.1% 


3 


2.3% 


128 


243.2 


223.5 


District Totals 


117 


84.2% 


19 


13.7% 


3 


2.2% 


139 


242.3 


224.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


30 


78.9% 


8 


21.1% 





0.0% 


38 


245.9 


256.0 


Surry 


8 U 


60.0% 


5 5 


39.3% 


1 


0.7% 


140 


308.3 


330.0 


District Totals 


114 


64.0% 


6 3 


35.4% 


1 


0.6% 


178 


295.0 


314.5 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



<12 



12-24 



>24 



Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 18 
Guilford 



395 



37.4% 



217 



20.6% 



443 



42.0% 



1,055 



640.2 



588.0 



District 19A 



Cabarrus 


64 


53.3% 


44 


36.7% 


12 


10.0% 


120 


381.1 


344.5 


Rowan 


76 


59.4% 


44 


34.4% 


8 


6.3% 


128 


328.9 


299.5 


District Totals 


140 


56.5% 


88 


35.5% 


20 


8.1% 


248 


354.1 


310.0 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


9 


60.0% 


4 


26.7% 


2 


13.3% 


15 


375.9 


274.0 


Randolph 


48 


46.2% 


29 


27.9% 


27 


26.0% 


104 


513.6 


390.5 


District Totals 


57 


47.9% 


33 


27.7% 


29 


24.4% 


119 


496.2 


385.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


25 


48.1% 


20 


38.5% 


7 


13.5% 


52 


433.0 


368.0 


Moore 


48 


57.8% 


22 


26.5% 


13 


15.7% 


83 


418.6 


342.0 


Richmond 


40 


66.7% 


14 


23.3% 


6 


10.0% 


60 


355.8 


281.0 


Stanly 


21 


32.3% 


19 


29.2% 


25 


38.5% 


65 


590.8 


596.0 


Union 


51 


41.5% 


50 


40.7% 


22 


17.9% 


123 


440.4 


446.0 



District Totals 185 



48.3% 



125 



32.6% 



73 



19.1% 



383 



446.9 



384.0 



District 21 
Forsyth 



449 



64.8% 



231 



33.3% 



13 



1.9% 



693 



307.8 



301.0 



District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 



25 
108 

35 
103 

271 



73.5% 
63.9% 
81.4% 
64.8% 

66.9% 



9 

50 

8 

44 

111 



26.5% 
29.6% 
18.6% 
27.7% 

27.4% 




11 


12 

23 



0.0% 
6.5% 
0.0% 
7.5% 

5.7% 



34 
169 

43 
159 

405 



278.8 
309.7 
232.8 
316.4 

301.6 



286.5 
275.0 
249.0 
275.0 

275.0 



Alleghany 


11 


64.7% 


5 


29.4% 


1 


5.9% 


17 


361.5 


296.0 


Ashe 


35 


76.1% 


9 


19.6% 


2 


4.3% 


46 


275.4 


230.5 


Wilkes 


59 


43.7% 


57 


42.2% 


19 


14.1% 


135 


402.9 


400.0 


Yadkin 


31 


67.4% 


13 


28.3% 


2 


4.3% 


46 


300.0 


269.5 


District Totals 


136 


55.7% 


84 


34.4% 


24 


9.8% 


244 


356.6 


321.5 


District 24 




















Avery 


37 


72.5% 


12 


23.5% 


2 


3.9% 


51 


272.8 


247.0 


Madison 


20 


52.6% 


16 


42.1% 


2 


5.3% 


38 


370.2 


352.0 


Mitchell 


15 


55.6% 


8 


29.6% 


4 


14.8% 


27 


424.5 


336.0 


Watauga 


39 


52.7% 


32 


43.2% 


3 


4.1% 


74 


347.7 


360.0 


Yancey 


7 


50.0% 


6 


42.9% 


1 


7.1% 


14 


378.3 


364.0 


District Totals 


118 


57.8% 


74 


36.3% 


12 


5.9% 


204 


345.4 


328.0 


District 25 




















Burke 


55 


36.2% 


61 


40.1% 


36 


23.7% 


152 


588.0 


472.0 


Caldwell 


87 


66.9% 


39 


30.0% 


4 


3.1% 


130 


303.2 


258.5 


Catawba 


170 


65.1% 


64 


24.5% 


27 


10.3% 


261 


344.3 


273.0 


District Totals 


312 


57.5% 


164 


30.2% 


67 


12.3% 


543 


402.7 


313.0 


District 26 





















Mecklenburg 



943 



45.7% 



614 



29.7% 



507 



24.6% 



2,064 



475.3 



455.5 



99 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 



District 27A 
Gaston 



<12 
301 



Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



71.5% 



12-24 
100 



% 
23.8% 



>24 

20 



A. 8% 



Total 
Disposed 

421 



Mean 

Age (Days) 

293.1 



Median 
Age (Days) 

254.0 



District 27B 



Cleveland 


82 


57.7% 


51 


35.9% 


9 


6.3% 


Lincoln 


40 


59.7% 


26 


38.8% 


1 


1.5% 


District Totals 


122 


58.4% 


77 


36.8% 


10 


4.8% 


District 28 














Buncombe 


346 


73.3% 


108 


22.9% 


18 


3.8% 


District 29 














Henderson 


42 


46.2% 


20 


22.0% 


29 


31.9% 


McDowell 


30 


55.6% 


22 


40.7% 


2 


3.7% 


Polk 


7 


46.7% 


5 


33.3% 


3 


20.0% 


Rutherford 


31 


43.7% 


23 


32.4% 


17 


23.9% 


Transylvania 


22 


50.0% 


18 


40.9% 


4 


9.1% 


District Totals 


132 


48.0% 


88 


32.0% 


55 


20.0% 


District 30 














Cherokee 


13 


59.1% 


6 


27.3% 


3 


13.6% 


Clay 


4 


44.4% 


5 


55.6% 





0.0% 


Graham 


7 


77.8% 


2 


22.2% 





0.0% 


Haywood 


56 


59.6% 


23 


24 . 5% 


15 


16.0% 


Jackson 


20 


32.3% 


14 


22.6% 


28 


45.2% 


Macon 


25 


48.1% 


16 


30.8% 


11 


21.2% 


Swain 


7 


38.9% 


7 


38.9% 


4 


22.2% 



142 
67 

209 



472 



91 
54 
15 
71 
44 

275 



22 
9 
9 
94 
62 
52 
18 



334.4 
298.8 

323.0 



284.2 



477.1 
354.5 
457.8 
456.8 
367.6 

429.2 



385.5 
359.9 
187.8 
335.4 
759.0 
455.6 
478.3 



315.5 
318.0 

317.0 



234.0 



413.0 
330.5 
553.0 
492.0 
365.5 

376.0 



304.0 
416.0 
132.0 
192.0 
590.5 
381.0 
489.5 



District Totals 132 



State Totals 



7,518 



49.6% 



73 



56.3% 3,780 



27.4% 



61 



28.3% 2,067 



22.9% 



15.5% 



266 
13,365 



467.3 



400.1 



371.5 
314.0 



100 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR 
AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE 
OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1!>84 - June 30, 1985 

Estates 



ESTATES 
THE CLERKS 



Filed 



Disposed 



Special Proceedings 



Filed 



Disposed 



District 1 



Camden 




Chowan 




Currituck 




Dare 




Gates 




Pasquotank 




Perquimans 




District 


Totals 


District 2 




Beaufort 




Hyde 




Martin 




Tyrrell 




Washington 




District 


Totals 


District 3 




Carteret 




Craven 




Pamlico 




Pitt 




District 


Totals 


District 4 




Duplin 




Jones 




Onslow 




Sampson 




District 


Totals 


District 5 




New Hanover 


Pender 




District 


Totals 


District 6 




Bertie 




Halifax 




Hertford 




Northampton 


District 


Totals 


District 7 




Edgecombe 




Nash 




Wilson 




District 


Totals 


District 8 





Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



50 
147 
120 
135 

64 
216 

92 

824 



408 
64 

211 
29 
96 



420 

379 

64 

589 

1,452 



345 
81 

407 
446 

1,279 



776 
172 



948 



138 
436 
194 
154 

942 



451 

430 
428 

1,309 



133 
468 

1,286 



46 

168 

97 

160 

62 

241 

'58 

832 



115 
56 

170 
32 
80 

453 



415 

336 

63 

607 



1,421 



285 

70 

335 

427 

1,117 



774 

140 



914 



133 
397 

17J 
147 

850 



447 
421 
488 

1,356 



152 
482 
665 

1,299 



23 
79 
51 

113 

49 
126 

41 

482 



167 
40 

141 
13 
62 

423 



238 
349 
30 

487 



1,104 



233 

38 
792 
327 

1,390 



80 7 
125 

932 



92 
204 
116 
111 

523 



252 
292 
338 

882 



46 
384 

598 

1,028 



28 
128 

40 
153 

44 

137 

34 

564 



11 1 
36 

193 
12 
70 

422 



164 

303 

40 

365 

872 



182 

82 

601 

355 

1,220 



771 
107 

878 



35 
161 
127 

91 

434 



224 
270 
289 

783 



79 
404 
529 

1,012 



101 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Estates Special Proceedings 



Cumberland 


Hoke 




District Totals 


District 


13 


Bladen 




Brunswick 


Columbus 




District Totals 


District 


14 


Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 


Chatham 




Orange 




District Totals 


District 


L6 



Filed Disposed Filed Disposed 

District 9 

Franklin 216 191 281 187 

Granville 281 237 340 342 

Person 227 203 138 140 

Vance 300 307 191 183 

Warren 171 180 106 115 

District Totals 1,195 1,118 1,056 967 

District 10 

Wake 1,705 1,429 1,643 1,695 

District 11 

Harnett 402 409 261 237 

Johnston 550 543 569 582 

Lee 225 193 176 137 

District Totals 1,177 1,145 1,006 956 

District 12 

906 797 1,667 1,679 

38 63 98 93 

994 860 1,765 1,772 

176 152 215 230 

403 339 239 238 

361 297 247 241 

940 788 701 709 

1,097 1,044 1,071 993 



737 697 534 471 



260 220 122 92 

445 394 579 1,092 

705 614 701 1,184 

Robeson 611 533 548 564 

Scotland 246 206 135 203 

District Totals 857 739 683 767 

District 17A 

Caswell 131 164 114 90 

Rockingham 595 646 295 276 

District Totals 726 810 409 366 

District 17B 

Stokes 234 218 133 159 

Surry 458 491 315 325 

District Totals 692 709 448 484 



102 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Estates Special Proceedings 



District 


18 


Guilford 




District 


19A 



Filed Disposed Filed Disposed 



2,129 2,191 1,907 1,886 



Cabarrus 661 618 344 264 

Rowan 884 856 942 911 

District Totals 1,545 1,474 1,286 1,175 

District 19B 

Montgomery 170 174 185 184 

Randolph 609 655 381 341 

District Totals 779 829 566 525 

District 20 

Anson 151 106 80 39 

Moore 474 444 287 277 

Richmond 310 217 235 152 

Stanly 402 657 200 145 

Union 369 331 234 238 

District Totals 1,706 1,755 1,036 851 

District 21 

Forsyth 1,542 1,546 1,527 1,435 

District 22 



Alexander 155 155 j^rj 103 

Davidson 778 739 387 375 

Davie 192 172 77 105 

Iredell 695 634 395 336 

District Totals 1,820 1,700 999 919 

District 23 

Alleghany 98 89 50 55 

Ashe 153 194 110 155 

Wilkes 276 264 447 378 

Yadkin 201 188 112 98 

District Totals 728 735 719 686 

District 24 

Avery 108 105 106 76 

Madison 88 92 36 27 

Mitchell 134 177 64 48 

Watauga 160 158 143 124 

Yancey 97 129 57 65 

District Totals 587 661 406 340 

District 25 

Burke 446 381 408 345 

Caldwell 478 417 366 278 

Catawba 695 589 367 299 

District Totals 1,619 1,387 1,141 922 

District 26 

Mecklenburg 2,523 2,364 2,662 1,863 



103 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 



July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Estates 



Filed 



Disposed 



Special Proceedings 



Filed 



Disposed 



District 


27A 


Gaston 




District 


27B 



Cleveland 
Lincoln 



District Totals 
District 28 



Buncombe 



1,074 



593 

266 

859 



1,382 



1,075 



498 
253 



751 



1,304 



661 

471 
146 

617 

997 



698 



404 
169 

573 



933 



District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 

State Totals 



560 

206 
227 
500 
205 

1,698 



520 
252 
260 
419 
229 

1,680 



194 


114 


51 


39 


51 


23 


406 


431 


147 


120 


162 


170 


58 


71 


069 


968 


733 


38,615 



330 

234 

86 

240 

127 

1,017 



111 
39 
47 

233 

149 

327 

55 

961 

33,283 



311 
171 
66 
307 
110 

965 



96 

24 

31 

207 

232 

296 

57 

943 

31,263 



104 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 

1975 - 1984-85 



ESTATE CASES 



60 



T 

H 
O 

U 
S 
A 
N 
D 
S 



o 

F 



C 
A 

S 
E 

S 



40 



20 




75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 



i — ! — i i r 

81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 



SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASES 



40 

T 

H 

O 

U 

S 30 

A 

N 

D 

S 

20 

O 
F 



C 
A 

S 
E 

S 




Dispositions 



-| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I — 

75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 



After slight declines last fiscal year, but following the increased by 3.2% during fiscal 1984-85, and filings of 

general trend of the past decade, filings of estate cases special proceedings increased by 8.6%. 



105 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1975 - 1984-85 



i 

H 


V 

s 

A 
N 

D 

S 




F 



C 
\ 

s 

E 

S 



00 



so 



70 



60 



50 



40 



30 



20 



10 




Dispositions 



End Pending 



— I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 

75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 



The upturn in the trend of criminal case filings is largely 
due to a 19.6% increase in misdemeanor appeals filings. 
Felony case filings declined slightly, by 3.0% 



106 



FILINGS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS-BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



A total of 71,915 criminal cases were reported filed in the Superior Courts, of which 40,915 were 
felonies, and 31,000 misdemeanors. These are broken down into the following specific types of cases: 



FELONIES 
Murder 
Manslaughter 
First Degree Rape 
Other Sex Offense 
Robbery 
Assault 
Burglary 
Larceny 

Arson & Burnings 
Forgery & Utterings 
Fraudulent Activity 
Controlled Substances 
* Other 
TOTAL 



Number Filed 

479 

108 

882 

226 
1,501 
1,830 
7,161 
6,948 

322 
5,377 
3,237 
6,719 
6,125 
40,915 



% of Total Filings 



1 


.2 




.3 


2 


.2 




.6 


3 


.7 


4 


.5 


17 


.5 


17 


.0 




.8 


13 


.1 


7 


.9 


16 


.4 


15 


.0 


100 


.0 



MISDEMEANORS 

DWI Appeal 6,33 1 

Other Motor Vehicle Appeal 5,729 

Non-Motor Vehicle Appeal 16,802 

Misdemeanor Originating in Superior Court 2,138 

TOTAL 31,000 



20.4 

18.5 

54.2 

6.9 

100.0 



* "Other" felony cases include a wide variety of offenses 
defined in the North Carolina General Statutes that do 
not fit squarely into any of the listed offenses above, 
including kidnapping, trespassing, crimes against public 
morality, perjury, and obstructing justice. When more 
than one offense is charged, the first offense listed 
in the criminal pleading (originating document) is used 
to assign the case type given above. 



107 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 







Fel 


onies 








Begin 














Pending 




Total 






% 


Caseloai 


7/1/84 


Filed 


Caseload 


Dis 


posed 


D 


isposed 


6 


L9 


35 




20 




80.0 


40 


35 


75 




40 




53.3 


9 


88 


97 




b2 




63.9 


23 


176 


199 




142 




71.4 


14 


3m 


48 




27 




56.3 


74 


178 


252 




182 




72.2 


27 


33 


60 




4 




66.7 



End 
Pending 

6/30/85 



5 
35 
35 
57 
21 
70 
20 







Misdemeanors 










Begin 
















End 


Pending 




Total 








% 


Caseload 


Pending 


7/1/84 


Filed 


Caseload 


Di 


isp 


osed 


D 


isposed 


6/30/85 


31 


71 


102 






72 




70.6 


30 


52 


196 


248 






211 




85.1 


37 


30 


141 


171 






133 




77.8 


38 


72 


296 


368 






266 




72.3 


102 


23 


59 


82 






71 




86.6 


11 


120 


597 


717 






590 




82.3 


127 


60 


103 


163 






123 




75.5 


40 



District Totals 



193 



563 



756 



513 



67.9 



243 



388 



1,463 1,851 



1,466 



79.2 



385 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



:03 


220 


423 


305 


72.1 


118 


24 


29 


5 3 


25 


47.2 


23 


44 


126 


170 


156 


91.8 


14 


8 


24 


i^ 


28 


87.5 


4 


J5 


100 


135 


123 


91.1 


12 



87 


206 


293 


231 


78.8 


8 


24 


32 


22 


68.8 


41 


68 


109 


104 


95.4 


5 


41 


46 


33 


71.7 


22 


85 


107 


86 


80.4 



62 

10 

5 

13 
21 



District Totals 



314 



499 



813 



637 



78.4 



176 



163 



424 



587 



476 



31.1 



111 



District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 



111 


221 


532 


193 


58.1 


139 


144 


574 


718 


523 


72.8 


195 


9 


27 


36 


11 


30.6 


25 


290 


666 


956 


794 


83.1 


162 



16 


125 


141 


103 


73.0 


38 


50 


349 


399 


338 


84.7 


61 


11 


24 


35 


34 


97.1 


1 


139 


686 


825 


705 


85.5 


120 



District Totals 



554 



1,488 2,042 



1,521 



74.5 



521 



216 



1,184 



1,400 



1,180 84.3 



220 



District 4 



Duplin 


92 


592 


684 


620 


90.6 


64 


Jones 


1 


21 


22 


21 


95.5 


1 


Onslow 


129 


967 


1,096 


862 


78.6 


234 


Sampson 


18 


394 


412 


376 


91.3 


36 


District Totals 


240 


1,974 


2,214 


1,879 


84.9 


335 


District 5 














New Hanover 


592 


1,691 


2,083 


1,537 


73.8 


546 


Pender 


23 


73 


96 


83 


86.5 


13 


District Totals 


41 5 


1,764 


2,179 


1,620 


74.3 


559 


District 6 














Bertie 


17 


98 


115 


95 


82.6 


20 


Halifax 


102 


262 


364 


519 


87.6 


45 


Hertford 


37 


178 


215 


157 


73.0 


58 


Northampton 


45 


75 


120 


1 11 


92.5 


9 


District Totals 


201 


613 


814 


682 


83.8 


132 


District 7 














Edgecombe 


5 2 


241 


293 


231 


78.8 


62 


Nash 


38 


»58 


i'n, 


351 


88.6 


45 


Wilson 


71 


323 


394 


302 


76.6 


92 


District Totals 


16) 


922 


1,083 


884 


81.6 


199 


District 8 















Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



63 

67 

98 



160 223 
306 373 
581 679 



208 
2 7 ■) 
436 



93.3 
74.8 
64.2 



15 

94 

243 



11 


53 


64 


59 


92.2 


2 


11 


13 


11 


84.6 


34 


236 


270 


231 


85.6 


1 


56 


57 


56 


98.2 



48 



1 59 



1 58 



105 



356 



849 



519 



663 



404 



988 



657 



773 



357 



795 



533 



622 



80.5 



22 


100 


122 


103 


84.4 


68 


222 


290 


229 


79.0 


23 


105 


128 


105 


82.0 


25 


92 


117 


96 


82.1 



81.1 



39 


263 


302 


263 


87.1 


27 


257 


284 


227 


79.9 


39 


148 


187 


132 


70.6 



80.5 



5 

2 

39 

1 

47 



25 


762 


88 7 


716 


80.7 


171 


14 


87 


101 


79 


78.2 


22 



193 



19 
61 
23 
21 

124 



39 
57 
55 

151 



28 


89 


117 


103 


88.0 


14 


96 


466 


562 


456 


81.1 


106 


97 


526 


623 


461 


74.0 


162 



District Totals 



228 



1,047 



1,275 



923 



72.4 



352 



221 



L.081 



1,302 



1,020 



282 



108 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Felonies Misdemeanors 





Begin 










F.nd 


Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 


% 


Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/84 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/85 


7/1/84 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


disposed 


6/30/85 


District 9 


























Franklin 


101 


197 


298 


247 


82.9 


51 


107 


L65 


272 


234 


86.0 


38 


Granville 


139 


242 


381 


219 


57.5 


162 


74 


317 


391 


284 


72.6 


107 


Person 


67 


146 


213 


119 


55.9 


94 


131 


254 


385 


204 


53.0 


181 


Vance 


114 


29b 


410 


276 


67.3 


134 


84 


289 


373 


251 


67.3 


122 


Warren 


37 


69 


106 


76 


71.7 


30 


5b 


97 


153 


109 


71.2 


44 


District Totals 


458 


950 


1,408 


937 


66.5 


471 


452 


1,122 


1,574 


1,082 


68.7 


492 


District 10 


























Wake 


1,417 


2,873 


4,290 


2,554 


59.5 


1,736 


831 


2,177 


3,008 


2,580 


85.8 


428 


District 11 


























Harnett 


33 


277 


310 


287 


92.6 


23 


9 


98 


107 


84 


78.5 


23 


Johnston 


92 


274 


366 


347 


94.8 


19 


34 


27 3 


307 


271 


88.3 


36 


Lee 


101 


277 


378 


355 


93.9 


23 


6 3 


179 


242 


212 


87.6 


30 


District Totals 


226 


828 


1,054 


989 


93.8 


65 


106 


550 


656 


567 


86.4 


89 


District 12 


























Cumberland 


488 


1,271 


1,759 


1,392 


79.1 


367 


132 


516 


648 


532 


82.1 


116 


Hoke 


7 


97 


104 


97 


93.3 


7 


16 


72 


88 


72 


81.8 


16 


District Totals 


495 


1,368 


1,863 


1,489 


79.9 


374 


148 


588 


736 


604 


82.1 


132 


District 13 


























Bladen 


98 


95 


193 


140 


72.5 


53 


40 


89 


L29 


97 


75.2 


32 


Brunswick 


110 


257 


367 


216 


58.9 


151 


49 


8 3 


132 


85 


64.4 


47 


Columbus 


41 


207 


248 


188 


75.8 


60 


48 


294 


342 


286 


83.6 


56 


District Totals 


249 


559 


808 


544 


67.3 


264 


137 


466 


603 


468 


77.6 


135 


District 14 


























Durham 


593 


1,290 


1,883 


1,237 


65.7 


646 


201 


500 


701 


465 


66.3 


236 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


446 


807 


1,253 


936 


74.7 


317 


86 


768 


854 


578 


67.7 


276 


District 15B 


























Chatham 


53 


154 


207 


161 


77.8 


46 


9 


53 


64 


55 


85.9 


9 


Orange 


LOO 


423 


523 


388 


73.9 


137 


20 


82 


102 


81 


79.4 


21 



District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 



153 



176 
126 

302 



579 



1,120 
320 

1,440 



732 



1,296 
446 

1,742 



549 



1,037 
243 

1,280 



75.0 



80.0 
54.5 

73.5 



183 



259 
203 



462 



29 



137 



166 



136 



81.9 



27y 



945 



1,224 



785 



64.1 



30 



144 


676 


820 


610 


74.4 


210 


135 


269 


404 


175 


43.3 


229 



439 



Caswell 


2 


226 


228 


222 


97.4 


6 


4 


140 


144 


127 


88.2 


17 


Rockingham 


134 


529 


663 


584 


88.1 


79 


9 3 


478 


573 


472 


82.4 


101 


District Totals 


136 


755 


891 


806 


90.5 


85 


99 


618 


717 


599 


83.5 


118 


District 17B 


























Stokes 


19 


213 


232 


191 


82.3 


41 


50 


226 


276 


240 


87.0 


36 


Surry 


83 


444 


527 


450 


85.4 


77 


62 


533 


595 


532 


89.4 


63 



District Totals 



102 



657 



759 



641 



84.5 



118 



112 



759 



871 



772 



88.6 



99 



109 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/84 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/85 



Begin End 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/84 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/85 



District 18 


























Guilford 


1,331 


3,219 


4,550 


3,165 


69.6 


1,385 


352 


783 


1,135 


814 


71.7 


321 


District 19A 


























Cabarrus 


L78 


b74 


852 


648 


76.1 


204 


237 


788 


1,025 


725 


70.7 


300 


Rowan 


129 


52A 


653 


551 


84.4 


102 


113 


577 


690 


528 


76.5 


162 



District Totals 

District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 

District Totals 

District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 



30 7 



214 

323 

537 



63 
58 

192 
63 

171 



1,198 



185 
501 



b8b 



L67 

479 
b27 
297 
457 



1,505 



399 

824 



1,223 



230 
537 
819 
360 
628 



1,199 



294 
598 



892 



200 

421 
574 

27 5 
58 5 



79.7 



73.7 
72.6 



72.9 



87.0 
78.4 
70.1 
76.4 
93.2 



306 



105 

226 



331 



30 

116 

245 

85 

43 



350 



1,365 1,715 



1,253 



73.1 



462 



93 


367 


460 


327 


71.1 


133 


78 


942 


1,320 


1,038 


78.6 


282 



471 



1,309 1,780 



1,365 



76.7 



415 



145 


217 


362 


308 


85.1 


54 


61 


358 


419 


363 


86.6 


56 


57 


543 


600 


445 


74.2 


155 


56 


427 


483 


421 


87.2 


62 


101 


592 


693 


594 


85.7 


99 



District Totals 
District 21 



Forsyth 



District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 



547 



436 



31 
96 

19 

151 



2,027 
1,929 



80 
257 

10 1 

374 



2,574 
2,365 



1 11 
35) 
120 
525 



2,055 



2,023 



61 

224 

89 

343 



79.8 



35.5 



55.0 
63.5 
74.2 
65.3 



519 



342 



50 
129 

31 

182 



420 



2,137 2,557 2,131 83.3 



426 



92 


2,335 


2,727 


2,439 


89.4 


288 


13 


143 


156 


134 


85.9 


22 


8 5 


554 


639 


514 


80.4 


125 


34 


97 


131 


93 


71.0 


38 


96 


695 


791 


541 


68.4 


250 



District Totals 

District 23 

Alleghany 

Ashe 

Wilkes 

Yadkin 

District Totals 

District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 

District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 



297 



67 

39 
73 
8 b 

265 



44 
55 

27 
203 

41 

370 



L09 

173 
214 

496 



812 



27 
62 

2 38 
76 

403 



67 

44 

2 5 

221 

43 

400 



315 

554 
724 

1,593 



1,285 2,926 



1,109 



94 

101 

311 
162 

668 



111 
99 

5 2 

424 

84 

770 



424 
727 

938 

2,089 



4,211 



717 



70 

84 

219 

110 

483 



84 

69 

34 

333 

62 

582 



248 

48 5 
577 

1,310 
3,082 



64.7 



74.5 
83.2 
70.4 
67.9 

72.3 



75.7 
69.7 
65.4 
78.5 
73.8 

75.6 



58.5 
66.7 
61.5 

62.7 



73.2 



392 



24 
17 
92 

52 

185 



27 

30 
18 
91 
22 



176 
242 
361 

779 



1,129 



228 



1.489 



1,717 



1,282 



74.7 



435 



13 


15 


28 


21 


75.0 


7 


59 


52 


Ml 


79 


71.2 


32 


161 


421 


582 


481 


82.6 


101 


54 


99 


153 


107 


70.0 


46 



287 



6 

10 

4 

11 

29 

60 



587 



191 



874 



32 


38 


13 


23 


35 


39 


91 


102 


20 


49 



251 



688 



26 
9 
13 
66 
44 

158 



78.7 



68. 
39 
33. 
64. 

89. 



62.9 



186 



12 

14 

26 

36 

5 

93 



116 


352 


468 


279 


59.6 


189 


63 


44 1 


504 


329 


65.3 


175 


128 


699 


827 


582 


70.4 


245 


307 


1,492 


1,799 


1,190 


66.1 


609 


391 


1,257 


1,648 


1,156 


70.1 


492 



110 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Begin End Begin 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending Pending 

7/1/84 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/85 7/1/84 



End 
Total % Caseload Pending 

Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/85 



District 27A 


























Gaston 


219 


1,239 


1,458 


1,248 


85.6 


210 


181 


801 


982 


769 


78.3 


213 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 


115 


633 


748 


469 


62.7 


279 


106 


333 


439 


337 


76.8 


102 


Lincoln 


39 


201 


240 


170 


70.8 


70 


55 


20 5 


2bO 


201 


77.3 


59 


District Totals 


154 


834 


988 


639 


64.7 


349 


161 


538 


699 


538 


77.0 


161 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


315 


795 


1,110 


840 


75.7 


270 


75 


365 


440 


376 


85.5 


64 



District 29 



Henderson 


191 


321 


512 


380 


74.2 


132 


85 


150 


235 


171 


72.8 


64 


McDowell 


48 


225 


273 


197 


72.2 


76 


34 


154 


188 


163 


86.7 


25 


Polk 


19 


58 


87 


27 


31.0 


60 


11 


27 


38 


14 


36.8 


24 


Rutherford 


122 


324 


446 


283 


63.5 


163 


77 


283 


360 


257 


71.4 


103 


Transylvania 


57 


97 


154 


73 


50.6 


76 


24 


55 


79 


62 


78.5 


17 



District Totals 



District 30 



437 



Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



District Totals 409 
State Totals 14,288 



1,035 



1,472 



965 



65.6 



507 



57 


103 




160 


97 


60.6 


63 


1 


66 




67 


12 


17.9 


55 


37 


71 




108 


34 


31.5 


74 


200 


333 




533 


352 


67.9 


171 


54 


125 




189 


159 


84.1 


30 


40 


99 




139 


93 


66.9 


46 


10 


46 




56 


25 


44.6 


31 


409 


843 


1 


,252 


782 


62.5 


470 


288 


40,915 


55 


,203 


40,603 


73.6 


14,600 



231 



669 



900 



667 



74.1 



233 



26 


88 


114 


67 


58.8 


47 


12 


14 


26 


21 


30.8 


5 


19 


73 


92 


39 


42.4 


53 


in 


L99 


310 


214 


69.0 


96 


12 


53 


65 


56 


86.2 


9 


24 


45 


70 


46 


65.7 


24 


7 


35 


42 


12 


28.6 


30 


211 


508 


719 


455 


63.3 


264 


015 


31,000 


39,015 


30,366 


77.8 


8,649 



111 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



OTHER 3.4% N0T GU,LTY PLEA (JURY TRIAL) 
(1,376) — "*"1 I (2,121) 



DISMISSAL 
(11,447) 



GUILTY PLEA TO 

LESSER OFFENSE 

(4,804) 




GUILTY PLEA TO OFFENSE 
CHARGED 

(20,855) 



Guilty pleas accounted for 63.2% of all felony disposi- 
tions, with the overwhelming majority of these being 
guilty pleas to the offense as charged. Dismissals on this 
chart include voluntary dismissals with and without 



leave, and speedy trial dismissals. The disposition cate- 
gory "Other" includes miscellanous dispositions such as 
change of venue and dismissal on motion of the court. 



112 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 







Guilty 


Picas 


Jury 




DA D 


ismissal 




Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Without 


With 


After T 


deferred 


Negotiated 






Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other D 


ispositions 


Pleas 


District 1 




























Camden 




4 


9 


1 


3 















3 


20 


15 


Chowan 




11 


11 


6 


9 


2 












1 


40 


25 


Currituck 




24 


7 


10 





15 












6 


62 





Dare 




102 


3 


6 


1 


1 












29 


142 


75 


Gates 




2 


18 


1 


6 


















27 


21 


Pasquotank 




78 


27 


26 


45 


2 




2 







2 


182 


111 


Perquimans 




4 


14 


5 


15 















2 


40 


20 


District 


Totals 


225 


89 


55 


79 


20 




2 







43 


513 


267 


% of Total 


43.9%. 


17.3% 


10.7% 


15.4% 


3.9% 





.4% 





.0% 


8.4% 


100.0% 


52.0% 


District 2 




























Beaufort 




124 


51 


43 


57 


21 




1 







8 


305 


131 


Hyde 




5 


8 





4 


4 












4 


25 


14 


Martin 




48 


85 


7 


4 


2 












10 


156 


85 


Tyrrell 




16 


1 





6 












5 





28 


22 


Washington 




45 


30 


21 


18 












1 


8 


123 


53 


District 


Totals 


238 


175 


71 


89 


27 




1 




6 


30 


637 


305 


% of Total 


37.4% 


27.5% 


11.1% 


14.0% 


4.2% 





.2% 





.9% 


4.7% 


100.0% 


47.9% 


District 3 




























Carteret 




34 


76 


7 


64 


2 












10 


193 


96 


Craven 




217 


103 


38 


148 


6 












11 


523 


386 


Pamlico 




3 


2 





6 


















11 


9 


Pitt 




146 


399 


36 


157 


24 












32 


794 


606 


District 


Totals 


400 


580 


81 


375 


32 












53 


1,521 


1,097 


% of Total 


26.3% 


38.1% 


5.3% 


24.7% 


2.1% 





.0% 





.0% 


3.5% 


100.0% 


72.1% 


District 4 




























Duplin 




151 


352 


12 


97 


3 












5 


620 


525 


Jones 




3 


4 





9 


















21 


21 


Onslow 




602 





45 


137 


24 












4 


862 


561 


Sampson 




194 


23 


19 


67 


47 












21 


376 


179 


District 


Totals 


955 


384 


76 


360 


74 












30 


1,879 


1,286 


% of Total 


50.8% 


20.4% 


4.0% 


19.2% 


3.9% 





.0% 





.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 


68.4% 


District 5 




























New Hanover 


917 


93 


68 


320 


8 3 












56 


1,537 





Pender 




21 


7 


30 


13 


2 












10 


83 


13 


District 


Totals 


938 


100 


98 


333 


85 












66 


1,620 


13 


% of Total 


57.9% 


6.2% 


6.0% 


20.6% 


5.2% 





.0% 





.0% 


4.1% 


100.0% 


0.8% 


District 6 




























Bertie 




42 


10 


8 


33 















2 


95 


69 


Halifax 




77 


78 


30 


128 


3 












3 


319 


218 


Hertford 




60 


11 


27 


51 















8 


157 


70 


Northampton 


49 


15 


11 


34 


1 












1 


111 


92 


District 


Totals 


228 


114 


76 


246 


4 












14 


682 


449 


% of Total 


33.4% 


16.7% 


11.1% 


36.1% 


0.6% 





.0% 





.0% 


2.1% 


100.0% 


65.8% 


District 7 




























Edgecombe 




73 


51 


L8 


70 


3 












16 


231 


162 


Nash 




169 


65 


18 


62 


29 












8 


351 


224 


Wilson 




161 


43 


24 


64 


1 












9 


302 


185 


District 


Totals 


403 


159 


60 


196 


33 












33 


884 


571 


% of Total 


45.6% 


18 . 0% 


6.8% 


22.2% 


3.7% 





.0% 





.0% 


3.7% 


100.0% 


64 . 6% 



113 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



Guilty Pleas 



July 1, 1984 -June 30, 1985 

DA Dismissal 



Speedy 
Trial 



As Lesser Jury Without With After Deferred Trial Total 

Chargrd Offense Trials Leave Leave Prosecution Dismissals Other Dispositions 



Total 

Negotiated 

Pleas 



District 8 



Greene 


52 


128 


5 


12 


b 


1 





4 


208 


69 


Lenoir 


129 


38 


36 


64 


3 








9 


279 


202 


Wayne 


90 


160 


35 


117 


13 





1 


20 


436 


290 


District Totals 


271 


326 


76 


L93 


22 


1 


1 


33 


923 


561 


% of Total 


29.4% 


35.3% 


8.2% 


20 . 9% 


2.4% 


0.1% 


0.1% 


3.6% 


100.0% 


60 . 8% 


District 9 






















Franklin 


102 


30 


3 


81 


5 








26 


247 


156 


Granville 


80 


30 


5 


75 


8 


1 





20 


219 


105 


Person 


44 


21 


16 


31 











7 


119 


71 


Vance 


91 


66 


7 


102 


2 








8 


276 


185 


Warren 


32 


26 


5 


3 


4 








6 


76 


63 


District Totals 


349 


173 


36 


292 


19 


1 





67 


937 


580 


% of Total 


37.2% 


18.5% 


3.8% 


31.2% 


2.0% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


7.2% 


100.0% 


61.9% 


District 10 






















Wake 


1,477 


4 


72 


745 


208 








48 


2,554 


1,383 


X of Total 


57.8% 


0.2% 


2.8% 


29.2% 


8.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.9% 


100.0% 


54 . 2% 


District 11 






















Harnett 


185 


16 


19 


62 


2 








3 


287 


194 


Johns f-on 


208 


36 


14 


67 


b 








lb 


347 


246 


Lee 


149 


83 


19 


94 


2 








b 


355 


276 


District Totals 


542 


137 


52 


223 


10 








25 


989 


716 


X of Total 


54 . 8% 


13.9% 


5.3% 


22.5/. 


1.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.5% 


100.0% 


72.4% 


District 12 






















Cumberland 


950 


118 


80 


191 


22 








31 


1,392 


915 


Hoke 


69 


1 


7 


9 


1 








10 


97 


54 


District Totals 


L.019 


119 


87 


200 


23 








41 


1,489 


969 


% of Total 


68.4% 


8.0% 


5.8% 


13.4% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


2.8% 


100.0% 


65.1% 


District 13 






















Bladen 


56 


18 


9 


19 


24 








14 


140 


91 


Brunswick 


115 


33 


17 


30 


3 








18 


216 


149 


Columbus 


102 


25 


19 


37 








1 


4 


188 


114 


DistrLct Totals 


273 


76 


45 


8b 


27 





1 


36 


544 


354 


% of Total 


50.2^ 


14.0% 


8.3% 


15.8% 


5.0% 


0.0% 


0.2% 


6.6% 


100.0% 


65.1% 


District 14 






















Durha.n 


705 


9 


66 


386 


54 


3 





14 


1,237 


662 


% of Total 


57.0% 


0.7% 


5.3% 


3L.2% 


4.4% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


53.5% 


District 15A 






















Alamance 


715 


56 


43 


104 


8 








10 


936 


659 


X of Total 


76.4% 


6.0% 


4.6% 


11.1% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


1.1% 


100.0% 


70.4% 


District 15B 























Chatham 57 41 

Orange 134 24 

District Totals 191 65 

% of Total 34.8% 11.8% 



9 


■>{ 


1 


35 


173 


10 


44 


224 


11 


..0% 


40.8% 


2.0% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



2 


161 


12 


388 


14 


549 


2.6% 


100.0% 



107 
251 

358 
65.2% 



14 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Guilty Pleas DA Dismissal „ . t„...i 
1 Speedy I otal 

As Lesser Jury Without With After Deferred Trial Total Negotiated 

Charged Offense Trials Leave Leave Prosecution Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 



3 

3 

0.2% 0.0% 

28 

2 

30 

3.7% 0.0% 

2 



2 

0.3% 0.0% 



0.0% 0.0% 



1 10 648 445 

13 551 399 

1 28 1,199 844 

0.0% 0.1% 2.3% 100.0% 70.4% 



23 294 86 

19 598 348 

42 892 434 

0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 100.0% 48.7% 



3 200 131 

23 421 351 

40 574 413 

1 275 248 

11 585 488 

1 77 2,055 1,631 

0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 100.0% 79.4% 



District 16 


888 





70 


43 




Robeson 


9 


Scotland 


173 


19 


20 


11 


7 


District Totals 


1,061 


19 


90 


54 


16 


% of Total 


82.9% 


1.5% 


7.0% 


4.2% 


1.3% 


District 17A 












Caswell 


98 


34 


12 


24 





Rockingham 


330 


106 


24 


87 


17 


District Totals 


428 


140 


36 


111 


17 


% of Total 


53.1% 


17.4% 


4.5% 


13.8% 


2.1% 


District 17B 












Stokes 


166 


1 


6 


6 





Surry 


362 


31 


5 


39 


1 


District Totals 


528 


32 


11 


45 


1 


% of Total 


82.4% 


5.0% 


1.7% 


7.0% 


0.2% 


District 18 












Guilford 


2,143 


2 


62 


699 


160 


% of Total 


67.7% 


0.1% 


2.0% 


22.1% 


5.1% 


District 19A 












Cabarrus 


189 


206 


28 


207 


7 


Rowan 


234 


99 


26 


165 


9 


District Totals 


423 


305 


54 


372 


16 


X of Total 


35.3% 


25.4% 


4.5% 


31.0% 


1.3% 


District 19B 












Montgomery 


46 


37 


5 


183 





Randolph 


322 


59 


11 


143 


44 


District Totals 


368 


96 


16 


326 


44 


% of Total 


41.3% 


10.8% 


1.8% 


36.5% 


4.9% 


District 20 












Anson 


37 


83 


14 


58 


5 


Moore 


139 


46 


12 


198 


3 


Richmond 


234 


56 


11 


230 


3 


Stanly 


71 


Si 


3 


115 


2 


Union 


105 


204 


13 


245 


2 


District Totals 


586 


472 


58 


846 


15 


% of Total 


28.5% 


23.0% 


2.8% 


41.2% 


0.7% 


District 21 












Forsyth 


1,610 


1 


52 


272 


23 


% of Total 


79.6% 


.0% 


2.6% 


13.4% 


1.1% 



27 


1,037 


317 


10 


243 


61 


37 


1,280 


378 


2.9% 


100.0% 


29.5% 


26 


222 


77 


18 


584 


457 


44 


806 


534 


5.5% 


100.0% 


66 . 3% 


L0 


191 


58 


12 


450 


207 


22 


641 


265 


3.4% 


100.0% 


41.3% 


99 


3,165 


1,784 


3.1% 


100.0% 


56 . 4% 



65 2,023 619 

0.0? 0.0% 3.2% 100.0% 30.6% 



District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 

District Totals 
% of Total 



13 


30 


3 


8 











7 


61 


32 


96 


56 


19 


28 


3 


6 





16 


224 


99 


39 


14 


16 


15 


2 








3 


89 


28 


90 


138 


37 


5o 


3 








19 


343 


179 


238 


238 


75 


107 


8 


6 





45 


717 


338 


33.2% 


33.2% 


10.5% 


14.9% 


1.1% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


6.3% 


100.0% 


47.1% 



115 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 





Guilty 


Pleas 


Jury 
Trials 




DA D 


ismissal 




Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other D 


Total 
ispositions 


Total 




As 

Charged 


Lesser 
Offense 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


Negotiated 
Pleas 


District 23 

Alleghany 

Ashe 

Wilkes 

Yadkin 


4 
38 
88 
73 


6 

19 

44 

9 


2b 

11 

33 

5 


15 

5 

42 

21 


1 

3 


















18 

11 

9 

2 


70 

84 

219 

110 


23 

51 

107 

45 


District Totals 
X of Total 


203 
42.0% 


78 
16.1% 


75 

15.5% 


83 

17.2% 


4 
0.8% 






.0% 



0.0% 


40 
8.3% 


483 
100.0% 


226 
46.8% 


District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


lb 
1 

13 

52 




19 
8 

3 
70 

2 b 


7 

11 

6 

5 

14 


38 

33 

6 

200 

20 



9 
1 
3 





2 















2 
7 
5 
3 
2 


84 

69 

34 

333 

62 


49 
13 
17 
192 
36 


District Totals 
% of Total 


82 
14.1% 


126 
21.6% 


43 
7.4% 


297 
51.0% 


13 

2.2% 





2 
.3% 



0.0% 


19 
3.3% 


582 
100.0% 


307 
52.7% 


District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 


54 

141 
266 


56 
71 

54 


13 
42 
41 


111 
182 
170 


3 
20 

10 










2 

9 


11 
27 

27 


248 
485 
577 


163 
301 
324 


District Totals 
X of Total 


461 
35.2% 


181 
13.8% 


96 
7.3% 


463 
35.3% 


33 
2.5% 






.0% 


11 
0.8% 


65 
5.0% 


1,310 
100.0% 


788 

60.2% 


District 26 
Mecklenburg 
X of Total 


1,538 
49.9% 


3 

0.1% 


151 
4.9% 


1,202 
39.0% 


118 

3.8% 





1 

.0% 


7 
0.2% 


62 
2.0% 


3,082 

100.0% 


14 
0.5% 


District 27A 
Gaston 

% of Total 


691 

35.4% 



0.0% 


57 
4.6% 


398 
31.9% 


34 
2.7% 







.0% 


1L 
0.9% 


57 
4.6% 


1,248 
100.0% 


659 
52.8% 


District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 


176 
56 


87 
23 


23 
37 


168 
43 


2 






1 




2 

1 


10 
10 


469 
170 


286 
81 


District Totals 
% of Total 


232 
36.3% 


110 
17.2% 


60 
9.4% 


211 
33.0% 


2 
0.3% 





1 

.2% 


3 
0.5% 


20 
3.1% 


639 
100.0% 


367 

57.4% 


District 28 
Buncombe 
% of Total 


499 
59.4% 


140 
16.7% 


42 
5.0% 


118 
14.0% 


14 
1.7% 


1 


10 
.2% 




0.0% 


17 
2.0% 


840 
100.0% 


611 
72.7% 


District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


236 

96 

16 

162 

34 


59 
50 
4 
31 
L4 


9 
2 
1 
22 
4 


46 
41 
4 
56 
26 


21 


3 








3 













9 
8 
2 
6 



380 
197 

27 
283 

78 


240 
148 

23 
182 

58 


District Totals 
X of Total 


544 
56.4% 


158 
16.4% 


38 
3.9% 


173 
17.9% 


24 
2.5% 





3 

.3% 



0.0% 


25 
2.6% 


965 
100.0*% 


651 
67.5% 



16 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 





Gui 


ItJ 


Pleas 


Jury 




DA D 


ismissal 




As 




Lesser 


Without 


With 


After Deferred 




Chargt-d 




Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


District 30 
















Cherokee 


30 




22 


3 


26 








Clay 







6 


1 


4 








Graham 


15 




1 


4 





8 


4 


Haywood 


153 




69 


43 


76 


5 


6 


Jackson 


64 




19 


5 


46 





12 


Macon 


23 




17 


4 


37 








Swain 


6 




3 


7 


8 








District Totals 


291 




137 


67 


197 


13 


22 


% of Total 


37.2% 




17.5% 


8.6% 


25.2% 


1.7% 


2.8% 


State Totals 


20,855 




4 , 804 


2,121 


10,105 


1,212 


88 


% of Total 


51.4% 




11.8% 


5.2% 


24 . 9% 


3.0% 


0.2% 



Speedy Total 

Trial Total Negotiated 

Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 






16 


97 


54 





1 


12 


6 





2 


34 


12 





10 


362 


201 





13 


159 


79 





12 


93 


58 





1 


25 


7 





55 


782 


417 


0.0% 


7.0% 


100.0% 


53.3% 


42 


1,376 


40,603 


21,097 


0.1% 


3.4% 


100.0% 


52.0% 



117 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



NOT GUILTY PLEA (JURY TRIAL) 
(1,456) 



OTHER 

(9,454) 




GUILTY PLEA TO OFFENSE AS 
CHARGED 

(10,983) 



GUILTY PLEA LESSER OFFENSE 

(1,268) 



DISMISSALS 

(7,205) 



Guilty pleas accounted for 40.4% of all misdemeanor 
dispositions, with the overwhelming majority of these 
being to the offense as charged. Dismissals on this chart 
include voluntary dismissals with and without leave, and 



speedy trial dismissals. The disposition category "Other" 
includes miscellaneous dispositions such as change of 
venue, withdrawn appeals, and dismissal on motion of the 
court. 



118 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Guilty Pleas DA Dismissal 

Other Dispositions 



As 
Charged 



Lesser 
Offense 



Jury 
Trials 



Without 
Leave 



With 
Leave 



After Deferred 
Prosecution 



Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 



Total 

Negotiated 

Pleas 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



23 
78 
67 

179 
28 

150 
21 



5 

6 
16 

5 
11 

6 
14 



5 
10 
18 
14 

5 
15 
15 



14 

13 



1 

6 

56 

27 



3 


29 
8 
5 

32 
1 



22 

104 

3 

59 

16 
331 

45 



72 
211 
133 
266 

71 
590 
123 



17 
26 


42 

8 

100 

17 



District Totals 
% of Total 



546 
37.2% 



63 

4.3% 



82 
5.6% 



117 

8.0% 



78 
5.3% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



580 
39 . 6% 



1,466 
100.0% 



210 
14.3% 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



130 
2 

17 
13 

11 



19 
6 

5 
1 
4 



35 
4 

16 
7 

17 



18 
3 

17 

9 



22 
7 

46 
11 

42 



231 
22 

104 
33 

86 



33 
6 

3 

5 



District Totals 
% of Total 



173 
36.3% 



35 

7.4% 



79 

16.6% 



47 
9.9% 



13 
2.7% 




0.0% 



1 
0.2% 



128 
26 . 9% 



476 
100.0% 



55 
11.6% 



District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 



31 
142 

11 
302 



22 

18 



40 



11 

18 

3 

44 



14 

104 

7 

87 



3 
13 

8 
51 



22 

43 

5 

181 



103 

338 

34 

705 



22 
109 

19 
197 



District Totals 
% of Total 



486 
41.2% 



80 
6.8% 



76 

6.4% 



212 

18.0% 



75 

6.4% 




0.0% 





0.0% 



251 
21.3% 



1,180 
100.0% 



347 
29.4% 



District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 



20 
1 

92 
17 



14 

1 

5 



4 
1 

13 
1 



7 

3 

100 

12 



13 

5 
19 
20 



59 

11 

231 

56 



28 

6 

60 

10 



District Totals 
% of Total 



130 
36.4% 



20 
5.6% 



19 

5.3% 



122 

34.2% 



9 

.5% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



57 
16.0% 



357 

100.0% 



104 
29.1% 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



405 
29 



19 



32 
18 



94 
14 



43 




122 

10 



716 

79 





17 



District Totals 
% of Total 



434 
54.6% 



27 
3.4% 



50 
6.3% 



108 
13.6% 



43 

5.4% 




0.0% 



1 
0.1% 



132 

16.6% 



795 

100.0% 



17 
2.1% 



District 6 

Bertie 

Halifax 

Hertford 

Northampton 



26 
72 
31 
32 



17 

27 

3 

7 



4 

11 

3 

3 



20 
44 
25 
27 



36 
70 
42 
25 



103 

229 

105 

96 



31 
57 
17 
46 



District Totals 
% of Total 



161 
30.2% 



54 
10.1% 



21 
3.9% 



116 
21.8% 



1.5% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



173 
32.5% 



533 

100.0% 



151 
28.3% 



District 7 
Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wilson 



121 
95 
23 



11 

13 

7 



11 
8 
4 



56 

42 
53 



6 

14 

2 



58 
55 
42 



263 
227 
132 



104 
19 

22 



District Totals 
% of Total 



239 

38.4% 



31 
5.0% 



23 

3.7% 



151 
24.3% 



22 
3.5% 



1 

0.2% 




0.0% 



155 

24 . 9% 



622 

100.0% 



145 
23.3% 



19 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

DA Dismissal 



Guilty Pleas 

As Lesser 

Charged Offense 



Jury Without With After Deferred 
Trials Leave Leave Prosecution 



Speedy Total 

Trial Total Negotiated 

Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 



District 8 



Greene 

Lenoir 
Wayne 


11 
115 
179 


34 
23 
44 


4 
27 
48 


15 

93 

111 


7 
15 

14 





1 


District Totals 
% of Total 


305 
29.9% 


101 
9.9% 


79 
7.7% 


219 
21.5% 


36 

3.5% 


1 
0.1% 


District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


99 

98 
73 
96 
37 


8 

18 
9 
9 

18 


6 
4 
6 
6 
3 


47 

54 
49 
62 
16 


8 
7 
6 
3 










District Totals 
% of Total 


403 
37.2% 


62 
5.7% 


25 
2.3% 


228 

21.1% 


24 
2.2% 



0.0% 


District 10 
Wake 

% of Total 


696 

27.0% 



0.0% 


51 
2.0% 


434 
16.8% 


615 
23.8% 



0.0% 


District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 


32 
75 
49 


1 
18 

13 


8 

14 

5 


17 
38 
53 


2 
6 

15 


1 






District Totals 
% of Total 


156 
27.5% 


32 
5.6% 


27 
4.8% 


108 
19.0% 


23 
4.1% 


1 

0.2% 


District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 


111 
33 


5 
1 


57 

5 


121 
9 


17 







District Totals 
% of Total 


144 
23.8% 


6 
1.0% 


62 
10.3% 


130 
21.5% 


17 

2.8% 



0.0% 


District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 


26 
21 
60 


10 
11 
20 


11 
10 
28 


23 
22 

34 


12 
1 
5 







District Totals 
% of Total 


107 
22.9% 


41 
8.8% 


49 
10.5% 


79 
16.9% 


18 
3.8% 



0.0% 


District 14 
Durham 

% of Total 


227 
48.8% 


1 
0.2% 


14 
3.0% 


134 
28.8% 


21 
4.5% 



0.0% 


District 15A 
Alamance 
% of Total 


238 

41.2% 


7 
1.2% 


53 
9.2% 


94 
16.3% 


6 
1.0% 



0.0% 


District 15B 















Chatham 7 

Orange 15 

District Totals 22 

% of Total 16.2% 



4 
2.9% 



6 
7 

13 
9.6% 



11 
16 

27 
19.9% 



1 
0.7% 



1 
0.7% 






32 


103 





183 


126 


1 


63 


461 


1 


278 


1,020 


0.1% 


27.3% 


100.0% 





66 


234 





103 


284 





61 


204 





75 


251 





35 


109 





340 


1,082 


0.0% 


31.4% 


100.0% 


1 


783 


2,580 


.0% 


30.3% 


100.0% 






23 


84 





120 


271 





77 


212 





220 


567 


0.0% 


38.8% 


100.0% 





221 


532 





24 


72 





245 


604 


0.0% 


40.6% 


100.0% 





15 


97 





20 


85 





139 


286 





174 


468 


0.0% 


37.2% 


100.0% 





68 


465 


0.0% 


14.6% 


100.0% 




0.0% 



180 
31.1% 



578 
100.0% 






28 


55 





40 


81 





68 


136 


0.0% 


50.0% 


100.0% 



21 
328 
118 

467 
45.8% 



94 
100 

81 
138 

56 

469 

43.3% 



582 
22. 62 



35 
78 
92 

205 

36.2% 



83 

14 

97 
16.1% 



35 
30 
55 

120 
25.6% 



164 
35.3% 



201 
34.8% 



12 
19 

31 
22.8% 



120 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Guiltv Pleas DA Dismissal 





As 


Lesser 


Jury 


Without 


With 


After Deferred 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


District 16 














Robeson 


246 





58 


48 


16 





Scotland 


57 


4 


3 


11 


14 





District Totals 


303 


4 


61 


59 


30 





% of Total 


38.6% 


0.5% 


7.8% 


7.5% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


District 17A 














Caswell 


45 


21 


6 


7 








Rockingham 


182 


39 


20 


74 


12 





District Totals 


227 


60 


26 


81 


12 





% of Total 


37.9% 


10.0% 


4.3% 


13.5% 


2.0% 


0.0% 


District 17B 














Stokes 


173 


4 


1 


10 


15 





Surry 


316 


4 


3 


23 


10 





District Totals 


489 


8 


4 


33 


25 





% of Total 


63.3% 


1.0% 


0.5% 


4.3% 


3.2% 


0.0% 


District 18 














Guilford 


332 


1 


30 


184 


43 





% of Total 


40.8% 


0.1% 


3.7% 


22.6% 


5.3% 


0.0% 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 


225 


23 


29 


173 


20 


2 


Rowan 


191 


42 


12 


54 


34 





District Totals 


416 


65 


41 


227 


54 


2 


% of Total 


33.2% 


5.2% 


3.3% 


18.1% 


4.3% 


0.2% 


District 19B 














Montgomery 


122 


24 


9 


100 








Randolph 


492 


33 


19 


84 


94 





District Totals 


614 


57 


28 


184 


94 





% of Total 


45.0% 


4.2% 


2.1% 


13.5% 


6.9% 


0.0% 


District 20 














Anson 


61 


65 


3 


130 


8 





Moore 


97 


12 


5 


97 


12 





Richmond 


133 


26 


5 


130 


7 





Stanly 


203 


26 





85 


7 





Union 


153 


68 


11 


146 


1 





District Totals 


647 


197 


24 


588 


35 





% of Total 


30.4% 


9.2% 


1.1% 


27.6% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


District 21 














Forsyth 


1,237 





59 


291 


90 





% of Total 


50.7% 


0.0% 


2.4% 


11.9% 


3.7% 


0.0% 


District 22 














Alexander 


28 


7 


3 


20 


9 





Davidson 


75 


26 


12 


46 


37 


31 


Davie 


24 


4 


2 


4 


8 





Iredell 


130 


2L 


9 


87 


14 





District Totals 


257 


58 


26 


157 


68 


31 


% of Total 


20.0% 


4.5% 


2.0% 


12.2% 


5.3% 


2.4% 



Speedy 

Trial Total 

Dismissals Other Dispositions 



1 
1 

2 
0.3% 







0.0% 







0.0% 




0.0% 



241 
85 

326 
41.5% 



48 
145 

193 
32 . 2% 



37 
176 

213 
27.6% 



224 
27.5% 



610 
175 

785 
100.0% 



127 
472 

599 

100.0% 



240 
532 

772 
100.0% 



814 
100.0% 






253 


725 





195 


528 





448 


1,253 


0.0% 


35.8% 


100.0% 





72 


327 


2 


314 


1,038 


2 


386 


1,365 


0.1% 


28.3% 


100.0% 





41 


308 





140 


363 





144 


445 





100 


421 





215 


594 





640 


2,131 


0.0% 


30.0% 


100.0% 





762 


2,439 


0.0% 


31.2% 


100.0% 



Total 

Negotiated 

Pleas 



106 
18 






67 


134 





287 


514 





51 


93 





280 


541 





685 


1,282 


0.0% 


53.4% 


100.0% 



124 
15.8% 



25 
211 

236 

39.4% 



18 
87 

105 
13.6% 



245 
30.1% 



167 

78 

245 
19.6% 



116 
336 

452 
33.1% 



90 
159 
198 
151 
221 

819 

38.4% 



319 

13.1% 



12 

35 

5 
82 

134 
10.5% 



121 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 





Guilt) 


Pleas 






DA Dismissal 




Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other D 


Total 
ispositions 


Total 




As 

Charged 


Lesser 
Offense 


Jury W 
Trials 


ithout 
^eave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


Negotiated 
Pleas 


District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


1 
11 
64 
31 


4 
L4 

4 


8 

2 

30 

9 


3 
12 
98 

19 


1 

9 

27 

1 














1 




4 

30 

237 

43 


21 

79 

481 

107 


1 
24 
53 
16 


District Totals 
X of Total 


107 
15.6% 


47 
6.8% 


49 
7.1% 


132 
19.2% 


38 
5.5% 






.0% 


1 
0.1% 


314 
45.6% 


688 
100.0% 


94 
13.7% 


District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


6 
3 

1 

29 

3 


3 

4 
2 
4 


5 
3 


u 

4 


7 

1 

5 

9 

27 





2 
3 





















5 
2 
3 
13 
3 


26 

9 

13 

66 

44 


5 

1 

4 

18 

25 


District Totals 
Z of Total 


42 
26.6% 


13 
8.2% 


23 

14.6% 


49 
31.0% 


5 

3.2% 






.0% 



0.0% 


26 
16.5% 


158 
100.0% 


53 
33.5% 


District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 


47 

120 

182 


20 
13 
12 


23 
22 
19 


50 
65 
45 


11 
17 
29 









2 
3 



126 

89 

295 


279 
329 
582 


57 
100 
129 


District Totals 
2 of Total 


349 
29.3% 


45 
3.8% 


64 
5.4% 


160 
13.4% 


57 
4.8% 






.0% 


5 
0.4% 


510 
42.9% 


1,190 

100.0% 


286 

24.0% 


District 26 
Mecklenburg 
% of Total 


421 
36 . 4% 




0.0% 


74 
6.4% 


372 
32.2% 


81 
7.0% 







.0% 


3 

0.3% 


205 
17.7% 


1,156 
100.0% 


2 

0.2% 


District 27A 
Gaston 

% of Total 


284 
36.9% 



0.0% 


73 
9.52 


213 

27.7% 


36 

4.7% 







.0% 


12 
1.6% 


151 
19.6% 


769 
100.0% 


221 
28.7% 


District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 


136 
64 


26 
14 


25 
23 


73 
45 


4 













73 

5 3 


337 
201 


159 
55 


District Totals 
7. of Total 


200 

37.2;; 


40 
7.4% 


48 
3.92 


118 
21.9% 


4 
0.7% 







.0% 



0.0% 


128 
23.8% 


538 
100.0% 


214 
39.8% 


District 23 
Buncombe 
% of Total 


93 

24.7% 


9 

2.4% 


26 
6.92 


50 
13.3% 


15 
4.0% 





1 

.3% 




0.0% 


182 
48.4% 


376 
100.0% 


85 
22.6% 


District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


■■!! 

3 

113 
32 


12 

18 



9 

2 


13 
11 

2 
12 

5 


21 
19 
5 
32 
15 


3 

7 

6 

L 








5 











42 
25 

4 
80 

7 


171 

163 

14 

257 

62 


64 
63 
3 
98 
41 


District Totals 
7. of Total 


311 
46.6% 


41 
6.1% 


43 
6.4% 


92 

13.82 


17 
2.5% 





5 

.7% 



0.0% 


158 
23.7% 


667 
100.0% 


269 
40.3% 



122 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Jul) 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 





Guilt; 


' Pleas 


Jury 




DA D 


ismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 




Total 


Total 




As 


Lesser 


Without 


With 


After Deferred 


Negotiated 




Charged 


Offense 


Trials 


Leave 


Leave 


Prosecution 


Dismissals 


Other 


Dispositions 


Pleas 


District 30 






















Cherokee 


18 


13 


2 


15 





1 





18 


67 


30 


Clay 


2 


12 


5 














2 


21 


13 


Graham 


12 


2 


10 





2 








13 


39 


5 


Haywood 


108 


22 


11 


43 


5 








25 


214 


82 


Jackson 


30 


5 


3 


10 





5 





3 


56 


17 


Macon 


13 


3 


2 


13 


6 








9 


46 


20 


Swain 


4 


2 


1 


4 











1 


12 


1 


District Totals 


137 


59 


34 


85 


13 


6 





71 


455 


168 


% of Total 


41.1% 


13.0% 


7.5% 


18.7% 


2.9% 


1.3% 


0.0% 


15.6% 


100.0% 


36.9% 


State Totals 


10,983 


1,268 


1,456 


5,401 


1,726 


49 


29 


9,454 


30,366 


7,436 


% of Total 


36.2% 


4.2% 


4.8% 


17.8% 


5.7% 


0.2% 


0.1% 


31.1% 


100.0% 


24 . 5% 



123 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 



0-90 



Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 



91-120 121-180 131-365 365-730 



>730 



Tolal 
Pending 



Mean 
Age 



Median 
Age 



District 1 






Camden 


Fel 


A 




Mis 


16 


Chowan 


Fel 


7 




Mis 


14 


Currituck 


Fel 


30 




Mis 


31 


Dare 


Fel 


20 




Mis 


67 


Gates 


Fel 


9 




Mis 


8 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


34 




Mis 


69 


Perquimans 


Fel 


19 




Mis 


21 



Dist Totals Fel 123 

X of Total 50.6% 

Mis 226 

X of Total 58.7% 



District 2 






Beaufort 


Fel 


51 




Mis 


41 


Hyde 


Fel 


7 




Mis 


7 


Martin 


Fel 


14 




Mis 


5 


Tyrrell 


Fel 







Mis 


7 


Washington 


Fel 


1 




Mis 


9 



Dist Totals Fel 73 

% of Total 41.5% 

Mis 69 

% of Total 62.2% 



District 3 
Carteret 



Pamlico 



Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fe] 
Mis 



Dist Totals Fel 
% of Total 

Mis 
% of Total 



District 4 
Duplin 



Jones 



Onslow 



Sampson 



Fel 

Mis 

Fel 
Mis 
Fel 

M, , 

Mis 



58 
21 

126 

44 

19 

1 

102 
85 

305 
58 . 5% 

151 
68 . 6% 



46 

4 



2 

165 

37 

36 

1 



Dist Totals Fel 247 

% of Total 73.7% 

Mis 44 

X of Total 93.6% 



(1 











1 


5 


240.4 


40.0 


7 


1 


6 








30 


104.1 


54.0 








1 


14 


13 


35 


615.9 


671.0 


2 


4 


7 


5 


5 


37 


262.9 


152.0 








4 


1 





35 


61.5 


23.0 





2 


5 








38 


75.5 


40.0 


13 


12 


8 


1 


3 


57 


171.8 


117.0 


7 


7 


21 








102 


100.0 


67.0 





10 





1 


1 


21 


153.1 


125.0 


3 














11 


72.3 


61.0 


4 


11 


2 


10 


9 


70 


344.9 


94.0 


11 


17 


23 


7 





127 


120.7 


73.0 





1 











20 


54.0 


55.0 


1 


13 


5 








40 


100.6 


74.0 


17 


34 


15 


27 


27 


243 


259.8 


90.0 


7.0% 


14.0% 


6.2% 


11.1% 


11.1% 


100.0% 






31 


44 


67 


12 


5 


385 


119.6 


67.0 


8.1% 


11.4% 


17.4% 


3.1% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






23 


3 


27 


9 


5 


118 


180.2 


104.0 


7 


5 


3 


6 





62 


99.0 


48.0 





2 


5 





14 


28 


463.4 


509.5 





1 








2 


10 


305.4 


32.0 

















14 


31.1 


6.0 

















5 


26.2 


25.0 





4 











4 


169.5 


169.5 





4 


2 








13 


132.3 


90.0 


7 





4 








12 


173.8 


104.0 


9 


2 


1 








21 


93.0 


102.0 


30 


9 


36 


9 


19 


176 


212.7 


104.0 


17.0% 


5.1% 


20.5% 


5.1% 


10.8% 


100.0% 






16 


12 


6 


6 


2 


111 


117.1 


48.0 


14.4% 


10.8% 


5.4% 


5.4% 


1.8% 


100.0% 






16 


17 


19 


29 


I) 


L39 


167.4 


111.0 


3 


7 


7 








38 


111.2 


87.0 


13 


26 


13 


17 





195 


122.0 


61.0 


5 


8 


4 








61 


72.7 


51.0 





5 








1 


25 


95.7 


31.0 

















1 


37.0 


37.0 


12 


23 


15 


7 


3 


162 


127.9 


77.0 


12 


13 


9 


(J 


1 


120 


84.2 


48.0 


41 


71 


47 


53 


4 


521 


134.7 


69.0 


7.9% 


13.6% 


9.0% 


10.2% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






20 


28 


20 





1 


220 


85.5 


51.5 


9.1% 


12.7% 


9.1% 


0.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






1 


17 











64 


61.0 


60.0 








1 








5 


87.4 


46.0 





1 











1 


167.0 


167.0 

















2 


39.0 


39.0 


12 


54 


3 








234 


60.9 


17.0 


2 














39 


18.9 


12.0 

















36 


72.9 


74.0 

















1 


74.0 


74.0 


13 


72 


3 








335 


62.5 


32.0 


3.9% 


21.5% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






2 





1 








47 


28.2 


16.0 


4.3% 


0.0% 


2.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







124 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 



0-90 



District 5 



New Hanover 


Fel 


416 




Mis 


123 


Pender 


Fel 


3 




Mis 


15 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


419 


% of Total 




75.0% 




Mis 


138 


% of Total 




71.5% 


District 6 






Bertie 


Fel 


11 




Mis 


11 


Halifax 


Fel 


28 




Mis 


39 


Hertford 


Fel 


12 




Mis 


12 


Northampton 


Fel 


7 




Mis 


17 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


58 


% of Total 




43.9% 




Mis 


79 


% of Total 




63.7% 


District 7 






Edgecombe 


Fel 


53 




Mis 


32 


Nash 


Fel 


26 




Mis 


46 


Wilson 


Fel 


56 




Mis 


33 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


135 


% of Total 




67.8% 




Mis 


111 


% of Total 




73.5% 


District 8 






Greene 


Fel 


13 




Mis 


11 


Lenoir 


Fel 


65 




Mis 


73 


Wayne 


Fel 


205 




Mis 


102 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


283 


% of Total 




80 . 4% 




Mis 


186 


% of Total 




66.0% 


District 9 







Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 



Dist Totals Fel 
% of Total 

Mis 
% of Total 



39 
23 
71 
66 
32 
89 
69 
66 
10 
16 

221 
46.9% 

260 
52.8% 



Ages 


of Pendin 


j Cases (1 


)ays) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


365-730 


>730 


Age 


18 


83 


16 


9 


2 


546 


77.6 


44.0 


20 


18 


8 


2 





171 


82.0 


76.0 


2 


4 


3 


1 





13 


134.9 


124.0 


5 


2 











22 


59.1 


31.0 


20 


89 


19 


10 


2 


559 


78.9 


44.0 


3.6% 


15.9% 


3.4% 


1.8% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






25 


20 


8 


2 





193 


79.4 


74.0 


13.0% 


10.4% 


4.1% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






2 


1 


5 


1 





20 


149.4 


73.0 


2 


2 


5 


1 





19 


107.9 


66.0 


9 


1 


3 


2 


2 


45 


129.7 


41.0 


2 


5 


8 


5 


2 


61 


134.8 


45.0 


2 


1 


42 


1 





58 


190.3 


243.0 





3 


6 


2 





23 


148.4 


79.0 








1 


1 





9 


105.2 ■ 


48.0 





1 


1 


2 





21 


111.0 


80.0 


13 


3 


51 


5 


2 


132 


157.6 


104.0 


9.8% 


2.3% 


38 . 6% 


3.8% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






4 


11 


18 


10 


2 


124 


129.2 


66.0 


3.2% 


8.9% 


14.5% 


8.1% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






3 


I 


1 


4 





62 


63.5 


22.5 


2 


3 





2 





39 


60.8 


38.0 


3 


7 


9 








45 


104.4 


88.0 


3 


3 


4 


1 





57 


62.2 


30.0 


9 


1 


12 


8 


6 


92 


190.2 


55.0 


7 


1 


10 


3 


1 


55 


134.7 


45.0 


15 


9 


22 


12 


6 


199 


131.3 


47.0 


7.5% 


4.5% 


11.1% 


6.0% 


3.0% 


100.0% 






12 


7 


14 


6 


1 


151 


88.3 


33.0 


7.9% 


4.6% 


9.3% 


4.0% 


0.7% 


100.0% 









2 











15 


57.8 


48.0 


2 








1 





14 


83.5 


51.0 


15 


5 


5 


4 





94 


83.7 


69.0 


15 


8 


10 








106 


73.7 


55.0 


3 


14 


18 


3 





24 3 


68.4 


55.0 


9 


9 


J 9 


3 





162 


108.5 


76.0 


18 


21 


23 


7 





352 


72.0 


55.0 


5.1% 


6.0% 


6.5% 


2.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






26 


17 


49 


4 





282 


94.2 


60.5 


9.2% 


6.0% 


17.4% 


1.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 









3 





8 


1 


51 


148.2 


40.0 





4 


5 


2 


4 


38 


270.5 


55.0 


33 


14 


8 


5 


31 


162 


375.6 


104.0 


4 


1 1 


17 


4 


5 


107 


169.7 


53.0 


13 


20 


17 


11 


1 


94 


175.3 


129.0 


7 


19 


33 


29 


4 


181 


181.5 


94.0 


13 


22 


15 


6 


9 


134 


224.0 


89.0 


2 


15 


30 


7 


2 


122 


152.8 


66.0 


2 


1 


4 


8 


5 


30 


354.8 


248.5 


5 


9 


6 


7 


1 


44 


213.3 


163.0 


61 


60 


44 


38 


47 


471 


266.6 


97.0 


13.0% 


12.7% 


9.3% 


8.1% 


10.0% 


100.0% 






18 


58 


91 


49 


16 


492 


181.5 


76.5 


3.7% 


11.8% 


18.5% 


10.0% 


3.3% 


100.0% 







125 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Fending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 



Total Mean Median 

0-90 91-120 121-180 fs 1-365 365-730 >730 Pending Age Age 



Districc 10 

Wake Fel 670 

X of Total 38.6% 

Mis 249 

X of Total 58.2% 



157 


340 


314 


211 


44 


1,736 


185.0 


129.0 


9.0% 


19.6% 


18.1% 


12.2% 


2.5% 


100.0% 






31 


65 


67 


16 





428 


105.6 


60.0 


7.2% 


15.2% 


15.7% 


3.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







District 11 



Harnett 


Fel 


17 





1 


4 





1 


23 


107.0 


25.0 




Mis 


19 


1 


3 











23 


49.8 


25.0 


Johnston 


Fel 


10 


1 


6 


2 








19 


98.9 


58.0 




Mis 


30 


2 


2 


2 








36 


49.2 


26.0 


Lee 


Fel 


17 


1 


3 


I 


1 





23 


99.2 


66.0 




Mis 


20 


4 


5 


1 








30 


63.7 


37.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


44 


2 


10 


7 


1 


1 


65 


101.9 


58.0 


% of Total 




67.7% 


3.1% 


15.4% 


10.8% 


1.5% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


69 


7 


10 


3 








89 


54.2 


26.0 


% of Total 




77.5% 


7.9% 


11.2% 


3.4% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 12 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


204 


53 


26 


46 


29 


9 


367 


154.3 


74.0 




Mis 


76 


10 


9 


11 


10 





116 


104.8 


44.5 


Hoke 


Fel 


4 





2 


1 








7 


115.9 


90.0 




Mis 


10 





6 











16 


62.8 


48.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


208 


53 


28 


47 


29 


9 


374 


153.6 


74.0 


% of Total 




55.6% 


14.2% 


7.5% 


12.6% 


7.8% 


2.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


86 


10 


15 


11 


10 





132 


99.7 


44.5 


% of Total 




65.2% 


7.6% 


11.4% 


8.3% 


7.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 13 






















Bladen 


Fel 


31 


2 


12 


5 


3 





53 


122.1 


75.0 




Mis 


23 


1 


1 


3 


3 


1 


32 


132.5 


66.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


38 


51 


10 


27 


8 


17 


151 


270.1 


97.0 




Mis 


24 


3 


3 


7 


1 


9 


47 


304.7 


82.0 


Columbus 


Fel 


25 


7 


9 


10 





9 


60 


232.7 


111.0 




Mis 


30 


5 


13 


5 


3 





56 


107.6 


71.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


94 


60 


31 


42 


11 


26 


264 


231.9 


97.0 


X of Total 




35.6% 


22.7% 


11.7% 


15.9% 


4.2% 


9.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


77 


9 


17 


15 


7 


10 


135 


182.1 


68.0 


% of Total 




57.0% 


6.7% 


12.6% 


11.1% 


5.2% 


7.4% 


100.0% 






District 14 






















Durham 


Fel 


332 


40 


72 


83 


92 


27 


646 


196.4 


88.0 


% of Total 




51.4% 


6.2% 


11.1% 


12.8% 


14.2% 


4.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


129 


13 


12 


42 


28 


12 


236 


197.0 


76.0 


X of Total 




54.7% 


5.5% 


5.1% 


17.8% 


11.9% 


5.1% 


100.0% 






District 15A 























Alamance Fel 175 

% of Total 55.2% 

Mis 79 

% of Total 28.6% 



95 


7 


39 





1 


317 


104.2 


76.0 


30.0% 


2.2% 


12.3% 


0.0% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






156 


14 


25 


1 


1 


276 


100.5 


94.0 


56.5% 


5.1% 


9.1% 


0.4% 


0.4% 


100.0% 







District 15B 






Chatham 


Fel 


25 




Mis 


7 


Orange 


Fel 


89 




Mis 


9 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


114 


% of Total 




62.3% 




Mis 


16 


7, of Total 




53.3% 



14 


2 


4 




l 







46 


89.0 


66.0 


2 


















9 


55.6 


66.0 


21 


13 


14 












137 


76.5 


80.0 


9 


3 















21 


85.2 


94.0 


35 


15 


18 




1 







183 


79.6 


80.0 


9.1% 


8.2% 


9.8% 





.5% 





.0% 


100.0% 






11 


3 















30 


76.3 


76.5 


6.7% 


10.0% 


0.0% 





.0% 





.0% 


100.0% 







126 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 



0-90 



Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 



91-120 121-180 181-365 365-730 



>730 



Total 
Pending 



Mean 
Age 



Median 
Age 



District 16 






















Robeson 


Fel 


200 


27 


9 


19 


2 


2 


259 


77.4 


48.0 




Mis 


155 


12 


17 


14 


12 





210 


88.1 


46.5 


Scotland 


Fel 


63 


33 


62 


22 


18 


5 


203 


170.3 


129.0 




Mis 


no 


18 


34 


26 


24 


17 


229 


238.8 


102.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


263 


60 


71 


41 


20 


7 


462 


118.2 


87.0 


% of Total 




56.9% 


13.0% 


15.4% 


8.9% 


4.3% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


265 


30 


51 


40 


36 


17 


439 


166.7 


66.0 


% of Total 




60.4% 


6.8% 


11.6% 


9.1% 


8.2% 


3.9% 


100.0% 






District 17A 






















Caswell 


Fel 


2 





4 











6 


103.3 


130.0 




Mis 


11 


3 


1 


2 








17 


80.9 


40.0 


Rockingham 


Fel 


58 


4 


11 


4 


1 


1 


79 


102.3 


82.0 




Mis 


80 





17 


4 








101 


71.9 


62.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


60 


4 


15 


4 


1 


1 


85 


102.4 


82.0 


% of Total 




70.6% 


4.7% 


17.6% 


4.7% 


1.2% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


91 


3 


18 


6 








118 


73.2 


62.0 


% of Total 




77.1% 


2.5% 


15.3% 


5.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 17B 






















Stokes 


Fel 


36 


1 


2 





2 





41 


67.9 


48.0 




Mis 


26 


3 


6 


1 








36 


66.6 


48.0 


Surry 


Fel 


56 


16 


2 


1 





2 


77 


73.8 


39.0 




Mis 


47 


10 


4 


1 


1 





63 


63.1 


40.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


92 


17 


4 


1 


2 


2 


118 


71.7 


47.5 


% of Total 




78.0% 


14.4% 


3.4? 


0.8% 


1.7% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


73 


13 


10 


2 


1 





99 


64.4 


46.0 


% of Total 




73.7% 


13.1% 


10.1% 


2.0% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 18 






















Guilford 


Fel 


403 


71 


93 


423 


309 


86 


1,385 


281.3 


195.0 


% of Total 




29.1% 


5.1% 


6.7% 


30 . 5% 


22.3% 


6.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


141 


26 


51 


32 


45 


26 


321 


232.1 


115.0 


% of Total 




43 . 9% 


8.1% 


15.9% 


10.0% 


14.0% 


8.1% 


100.0% 






District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


Fel 


L37 


10 


21 


32 


4 





204 


90.3 


59.0 




Mis 


201 


35 


26 


32 


4 


2 


300 


96.1 


73.0 


Rowan 


Fel 


80 


7 


2 


12 


1 





102 


67.3 


45.0 




Mis 


106 


12 


24 


16 


4 





162 


89.3 


69.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


217 


17 


23 


44 


5 





306 


82.6 


52.0 


% of Total 




70.9% 


5.6% 


7.5% 


14.4% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


307 


47 


50 


48 


8 


2 


46 2 


93.7 


73.0 


% of Total 




66.5% 


10.2% 


10.8% 


10.4% 


1.7% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 19B 






















Montgomery 


Fel 


86 


8 


i 


3 





5 


105 


95.1 


24.0 




Mis 


93 





6 


19 


7 


8 


133 


150.5 


54.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


117 


24 


39 


23 


12 


11 


226 


166.0 


85.0 




Mis 


162 


52 


28 


2d 


10 


4 


282 


109.0 


73.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


203 


32 


42 


26 


12 


16 


331 


143.5 


69.0 


% of Total 




61.3% 


9.7% 


12.7% 


7.9% 


3.6% 


4.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


255 


52 


34 


45 


17 


12 


415 


122.3 


73.0 


% of Total 




61.4% 


12.5% 


8.2% 


10.8% 


4.1% 


2.9% 


100.0% 







127 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 



0-90 



Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 



91-120 12--180 181-365 365-730 



.730 



Total 
Pending 



Mean 
Age 



Median 
Age 



District 20 



Anson 


Fel 


8 


2 


10 


3 


7 





30 


187.7 


143.0 




Mis 


28 


8 


11 


1 


6 





54 


133.3 


69.0 


Moore 


Fel 


80 


4 


26 


3 


2 


1 


116 


94.1 


59.0 




Mis 


4J 


3 


6 


4 


1 





56 


84.3 


63.0 


Richmond 


Fel 


221 


5 


3 


7 


7 


2 


245 


58.5 


20.0 




Mis 


93 


15 


23 


21 


1 


2 


155 


107.9 


80.0 


Stanly 


Fel 


64 


7 


4 


8 





2 


85 


100.7 


73.0 




Mis 


46 


8 


3 


5 








62 


63.4 


24.5 


Union 


Fel 


9 


8 


3 


10 


8 


5 


43 


295.8 


254.0 




Mis 


55 


6 


9 


20 


8 


1 


99 


135.2 


72.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


382 


26 


46 


31 


24 


10 


519 


100.5 


52.0 


% of Total 




73.6% 


5.0% 


8.9% 


6.0% 


4.6% 


1.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


264 


40 


52 


51 


16 


3 


426 


107.9 


69.0 


% of Total 




62.0% 


9.4% 


12.2% 


12.0% 


3.8% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 21 






















Forsyth 


Fel 


292 


12 


15 


13 


10 





342 


62.2 


30.0 


% of Total 




85.4% 


3.5% 


4.4% 


3.8% 


2.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


197 


13 


3 


52 


23 





288 


111.4 


38.0 


% of Total 




68.4% 


4.5% 


1.0% 


18.1% 


8.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 






















Alexander 


Fel 


14 


24 


8 


2 


2 





50 


117.0 


102.0 




Mis 


12 


1 


8 


1 








22 


95.5 


80.0 


Davidson 


Fel 


75 


6 


16 


14 


12 


6 


129 


158.7 


54.0 




Mis 


88 


13 


7 


12 


3 


2 


125 


97.5 


54.0 


Davie 


Fel 


3 


3 


20 


5 








31 


155.5 


167.0 




Mis 


23 





9 


6 








38 


107.6 


89.0 


Iredell 


Fel 


69 


15 


46 


31 


14 


7 


182 


171.4 


135.0 




Mis 


171 


25 


29 


23 


2 





250 


77.5 


41.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


161 


48 


90 


52 


28 


13 


392 


159.0 


107.0 


% of Total 




41.1% 


12.2% 


23.0% 


13.3% 


7.1% 


3.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


294 


39 


53 


42 


5 


2 


435 


86.8 


54.0 


% of Total 




67.6% 


9.0% 


12.2% 


9.7% 


1.1% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 23 






















Alleghany 


Fel 


6 





3 


2 


12 


1 


24 


313.3 


424.0 




M i s 


6 


1 














7 


69.4 


75.0 


Ashe 


Fel 


5 


1 





10 





1 


17 


265.7 


234.0 




Mis 


8 


3 





14 


4 


3 


32 


320.0 


230.5 


Wilkes 


Fel 


45 


4 


13 


23 


3 


4 


92 


169.2 


105.5 




Mis 


47 


5 


18 


16 


10 


5 


101 


209.5 


107.0 


Yadkin 


Kel 


13 


11 


12 


11 


3 


2 


52 


179.3 


144.0 




Mis 


19 


9 


9 


8 


1 





46 


127.8 


95.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


69 


16 


28 


46 


18 


8 


185 


199.6 


149.0 


% of Total 




37.3% 


8.6% 


15.1% 


24.9% 


9.7% 


4.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


80 


18 


27 


38 


15 


8 


186 


203.0 


107.0 


% of Total 




43.0% 


9.7% 


14.5% 


20.4% 


8.1% 


4.3% 


100.0% 






District 24 























Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



Fel 
Mis 
Fel 

Mis 

r ."• 1 
Ml j 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 



4 
2 
4 
3 
I 

4 

67 

21 

3 

l 



4 
3 
9 
3 
6 

16 
9 
4 

12 




2 
7 
2 
2 

10 

3 
1 



27 
12 
30 

14 
18 
26 
91 
36 
22 
5 



541.7 
341.1 
288.8 
365.4 
232.0 
196.0 
122.1 
79.8 
246.7 
193.4 



346.0 
229.0 
224.5 
255.0 
158.0 
195.0 
73.0 
68.5 
273.0 
111.0 



Dist Totals Fel 
X of Total 

Mis 
X of Total 



79 
42.0% 

31 
33.3% 



12 

6.4% 

14 

15.1% 



22 
11.7% 

13 
14.0% 



40 
21.3% 

26 
28.0% 



30 
16.0% 
5 
5.4% 



5 
2.7% 

4 
4.3% 



188 234.0 

100.0% 

93 195.1 

100.0% 



128.0 
124.0 



128 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



0-90 



Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 



91-120 121-180 1111-365 365-730 



.730 



Total 
Pending 



Mean 

Age 



Median 

Age 



District 25 



Burke 


Fel 


81 


15 


26 


34 


14 


6 


176 


188.3 


95.0 




Mis 


85 


11 


18 


48 


25 


2 


189 


177.2 


109.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


83 


62 


57 


19 


13 


b 


242 


140.3 


95.0 




Mis 


98 


9 


44 


21 


3 





175 


104.0 


76.0 


Catawba 


Fel 


160 


23 


91 


63 


19 


5 


361 


144.8 


107.0 




Mis 


137 


33 


36 


31 


5 


3 


245 


106.2 


68.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


324 


100 


174 


116 


48 


17 


779 


153.2 


95.0 


% of Total 




41.6% 


12.8% 


22.3% 


14.9% 


6.2% 


2.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


320 


53 


98 


100 


33 


5 


609 


127.6 


80.0 


% of Total 




52 . 5% 


8.7% 


16.1% 


16.4% 


5.4% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 26 






















Mecklenburg 


Fel 


570 


128 


141 


172 


84 


34 


1,129 


159.1 


89.0 


7, of Total 




50.5% 


11.3% 


12.5% 


15.2% 


7.4% 


3.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


290 


68 


56 


56 


17 


5 


492 


113.2 


66.0 


% of Total 




58.9% 


13.8% 


11.4% 


11.4% 


3.5% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 27A 






















Gaston 


Fel 


139 


27 


24 


15 


4 


1 


210 


96.7 


55.0 


X of Total 




66 . 2% 


12.9% 


11.4% 


7.1% 


1.9% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


128 


19 


16 


29 


20 


1 


213 


134.5 


74.0 


X of Total 




60.1% 


8.9% 


7.5% 


13.6% 


9.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


222 


23 


12 


15 


5 


2 


279 


90.5 


55.0 




Mis 


65 


16 


5 


11 


3 


2 


102 


118.6 


73.5 


Lincoln 


Fel 


58 


6 


1 


5 








70 


51.8 


25.0 




Mis 


34 


5 


9 


6 


5 





59 


111.9 


55.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


280 


29 


13 


20 


5 


2 


349 


82.8 


55.0 


X of Total 




80.2% 


8.3% 


3.7% 


5.7% 


1.4% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


99 


21 


14 


17 


8 


2 


161 


116.2 


65.0 


X of Total 




61.5% 


13.0% 


8.7% 


10.6% 


5.0% 


1.2% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Dist Totals 


Fel 


146 


20 


31 


32 


29 


12 


270 


182.6 


87.0 


X of Total 




54.1% 


7.4% 


11.5% 


11.9% 


10.7% 


4.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


41 


1 


13 


5 


2 


2 


64 


115.9 


54.5 


X of Total 




64.1% 


1.6% 


20.3% 


7.8% 


3.1% 


3.1% 


100.0% 






District 29 























Henderson Fel 65 

Mis 43 

McDowell Fel 65 

Mis 20 

Polk Fel 28 

Mis 4 

Rutherford Fel 73 

Mis 43 

Transylvania Fel 31 

Mis 4 

Dist Totals Fel 262 

X of Total 51.7% 

Mis 114 

% of Total 48.9% 



16 


19 


8 


13 


U 


132 


234.7 


107.0 


1 


6 


1 


10 


3 


64 


209.6 


12.0 


9 


u 


1 





1 


76 


45.8 


11.0 


2 


2 





1 





25 


63.8 


45.0 


1 


15 


15 


1 





60 


152.1 


163.0 


2 


3 


11 


3 


1 


24 


308.3 


284.0 


3 


55 


20 


10 


2 


163 


149.7 


124.0 


5 


13 


27 


15 





103 


185.5 


136.0 


11 


5 


7 


15 


7 


76 


250.8 


104.0 


1 


5 


3 


4 





17 


208.9 


129.0 


40 


94 


51 


39 


21 


507 


171.7 


90.0 


7.9% 


18.5% 


10.1% 


7.7% 


4.1% 


100.0% 






11 


29 


42 


33 


4 


233 


193.4 


103.0 


4.7% 


12.4% 


18.0% 


14.2% 


1.7% 


100.0% 







129 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 











Ag 


cs of Pendi 


ng Lases ( 


Days) 




Total 
Tending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


365-730 


>730 


Age 


District 


: 30 






















Cherokee 




Fel 


34 





4 


1J 


10 


2 


63 


214.3 


61.0 






Mis 


25 


2 


4 


14 


1 


1 


47 


161.8 


59.0 


Clay 




Fel 


36 





1 


18 








55 


143.1 


76.0 






Mis 


5 

















5 


72.2 


88.0 


Graham 




Fel 


5 


52 


1 





16 





74 


181.3 


118.0 






Mis 


22 





14 


9 


6 


2 


53 


174.0 


145.0 


Haywood 




Fel 


66 


I 


13 


27 


53 


11 


171 


273.7 


195.0 






Mis 


52 


3 


9 


22 


9 


1 


96 


153.4 


78.5 


Jackson 




Fel 


14 


1 


1 


3 


11 





30 


188.9 


147.5 






Mis 


2 


1 


2 


1 


2 


1 


9 


247.9 


146.0 


Macon 




Fel 


27 


2 


5 


3 


5 


4 


46 


828.8 


82.0 






Mis 


1 


1 


4 


15 


2 


1 


24 


318.7 


244.0 


Swain 




Fel 


7 





7 


16 





1 


31 


207.4 


194.0 






Mis 


L5 


1 


4 


9 





1 


30 


154.1 


91.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


189 


56 


32 


80 


95 


18 


470 


231.5 


118.0 


% of 


Total 




40. 2X 


11.9% 


6.8% 


17.0% 


20.2% 


3.8% 


100.0% 










Mis 


122 


8 


37 


70 


20 


7 


264 


175.8 


124.0 


% of 


Total 




46.2% 


3.0% 


14.0% 


26.5% 


7.6% 


2.7% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


7,632 


1,385 


1,829 


2,017 


1,269 


468 


14,600 


164.3 


88.0 


% of 


Total 




52.3% 


9.5% 


12.5% 


13.8% 


8.7% 


3.2% 


100.0% 










Mis 


5,081 


867 


958 


1,138 


455 


150 


8,649 


128.6 


72.0 


% of 


Total 




58.7% 


10.0% 


11.1% 


13.2% 


5.3% 


1.7% 


100.0% 







130 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 









Ages 


of Disposi 


>d Cases (1 


Jays) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


365-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 






















Camden 


Fel 


9 





7 


2 


2 





20 


147.4 


161.0 




Mis 


29 


13 


6 


19 


5 





72 


142.6 


98.5 


Chowan 


Fel 


25 


2 


2 


9 


2 





40 


119.6 


74.5 




Mis 


148 


14 


29 


16 


3 


1 


211 


84.0 


58.0 


Currituck 


Fel 


30 


6 


20 


5 


1 





62 


112.0 


94.5 




Mis 


71 


21 


22 


19 








133 


101.6 


71.0 


Dare 


Fel 


98 


22 


13 


8 


1 





142 


77.5 


59.0 




Mis 


159 


27 


39 


37 


3 


1 


266 


101.5 


74.0 


Gates 


Fel 


1 


5 


6 


12 


3 





27 


212.0 


182.0 




Mis 


38 


9 


10 


11 


2 


1 


71 


129.5 


85.0 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


88 


23 


25 


27 


14 


5 


182 


159.1 


94.0 




Mis 


382 


70 


60 


61 


14 


3 


590 


85.2 


55.5 


Perquimans 


Fel 


13 


6 


6 


14 


1 





40 


150.1 


121.0 




Mis 


50 


16 


14 


27 


15 


1 


123 


163.8 


117.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


264 


64 


79 


77 


24 


5 


513 


129.4 


87.0 


% of Total 




51.5% 


12.5% 


15.4% 


15.0% 


4.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


877 


170 


180 


190 


42 


7 


1,466 


101.0 


67.0 


% of Total 




59.8% 


11.6% 


12.3% 


13.0% 


2.9% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 


Fel 


75 


20 


111 


43 


51 


5 


305 


200.3 


144.0 




Mis 


113 


43 


36 


26 


9 


4 


231 


130.6 


94.0 


Hyde 


Fel 


12 


3 


2 


2 


2 


4 


25 


223.0 


110.0 




Mis 


15 





2 


5 








22 


97.4 


58.0 


Martin 


Fel 


108 


20 


16 


9 


3 





156 


84.6 


69.5 




Mis 


49 


12 


16 


20 


7 





104 


142.6 


92.5 


Tyrrell 


Fel 


14 


4 


4 





6 





28 


156.1 


94.5 




Mis 


22 


4 


4 


2 


1 





33 


97.0 


61.0 


Washington 


Fel 


76 


5 


15 


22 


5 





123 


120.1 


75.0 




Mis 


47 


4 


12 


17 


6 





86 


124.6 


82.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


285 


52 


148 


76 


67 


9 


637 


155.4 


108.0 


% of Total 




44.7% 


8.2% 


23.2% 


11.9% 


10.5% 


1.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


246 


63 


70 


70 


23 


4 


476 


128.3 


85.0 


% of Total 




51.7% 


13.2% 


14.7% 


14.7% 


4.8% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 3 






















Carteret 


Fel 


82 


39 


27 


32 


10 


3 


193 


135.6 


95.0 




Mis 


66 


15 


12 


8 


1 


1 


103 


86.8 


60.0 


Craven 


Fel 


269 


99 


67 


72 


16 





523 


108.6 


77.0 




Mis 


238 


41 


33 


26 








338 


71.5 


49.5 


Pamlico 


Fel 


4 


3 


1 


2 





1 


11 


211.7 


117.0 




Mis 


20 


7 


2 


3 





2 


34 


127.6 


88.0 


Pitt 


Fel 


453 


91 


96 


132 


22 





794 


117.5 


76.5 




Mis 


505 


44 


69 


58 


27 


2 


705 


92.8 


64.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


808 


232 


191 


238 


48 


4 


1,521 


117.4 


83.0 


% of Total 




53.1% 


15.3% 


12.6% 


15.6% 


3.2% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


829 


107 


116 


95 


28 


5 


1,180 


87.2 


60.0 


% of Total 




70.3% 


9.1% 


9.8% 


8.1% 


2.4% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 4 






















Duplin 


Fel 


561 


25 


18 


8 


8 





620 


44.9 


22.0 




Mis 


49 


3 


2 


5 








59 


50.4 


31.0 


Jones 


Fel 


7 


13 





1 








21 


81.0 


96.0 




Mis 


10 


1 














11 


52.5 


59.0 


Onslow 


Fel 


698 


68 


45 


31 


20 





862 


61.0 


39.0 




Mis 


171 


43 


12 


5 








231 


59.8 


52.0 


Sampson 


Fel 


339 


8 


17 


12 








376 


41.0 


27.0 




Mis 


52 


3 


I 











56 


35.5 


22.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


1,605 


114 


80 


52 


28 





1,879 


51.9 


33.0 


% of Total 




85.4% 


6.1% 


4.3% 


2.8% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


282 


50 


15 


10 








357 


54.2 


42.0 


% of Total 




79.0% 


14.0% 


4.2% 


2.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







131 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



11-90 



Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 



91-120 121-180 181-365 365-730 



.730 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 

Age 



Median 
Age 



District 5 



New Hanover 


Fel 


960 


152 


218 


140 


66 


1 


1,537 


103.6 


76.0 




Mis 


497 


70 


86 


51 


12 





716 


81.9 


62.0 


Pender 


Fel 


48 


11 


5 


16 


3 





83 


109.6 


62.0 




Mis 


58 


14 


4 


2 


1 





79 


61.0 


48.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


1,008 


163 


223 


156 


69 


1 


1,620 


103.9 


76.0 


% of Total 




62.2% 


10.1% 


13.8% 


9.6% 


4.3% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


555 


84 


90 


53 


13 





795 


79.8 


61.0 


% of Total 




69.8% 


10.6% 


11.3% 


6.7% 


1.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 6 






















Bertie 


Fel 


t>5 


10 


14 


3 


3 





95 


85.1 


51.0 




Mis 


60 


19 


12 


10 


2 





103 


95.4 


70.0 


Halifax 


Fel 


201 


15 


lb 


69 


16 


2 


319 


130.0 


74.0 




Mis 


123 


14 


26 


47 


18 


1 


229 


140.8 


78.0 


Hertford 


Fel 


91 


8 


10 


41 


1 


6 


157 


139.8 


78.0 




Mis 


71 


4 


18 


11 


1 





105 


80.5 


48.0 


Northampton 


Fel 


56 


23 


13 


14 


3 


2 


111 


121.2 


86.0 




Mis 


41 


16 


19 


18 


2 





96 


123.0 


108.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


413 


56 


53 


127 


23 


10 


682 


124.6 


74.0 


% of Total 




60 . 6% 


8.2% 


7.8% 


18.6% 


3.4% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


295 


53 


75 


86 


23 


1 


533 


116.9 


73.0 


% of Total 




55.3% 


9.9% 


14.1% 


16.1% 


4.3% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 7 






















Edgecombe 


Fel 


179 


24 


14 


3 


1 


10 


231 


105.5 


52.0 




Mis 


216 


18 


15 


6 


6 


2 


263 


75.2 


57.0 


Nash 


Fel 


271 


24 


35 


15 


6 





351 


77.8 


60.0 




Mis 


L67 


23 


20 


15 


1 


1 


227 


66.6 


33.0 


Wilson 


Fel 


189 


31 


31 


32 


6 


13 


302 


124.8 


69.5 




Mis 


75 


18 


18 


12 


9 





132 


120.3 


72.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


639 


79 


80 


50 


13 


23 


884 


101.1 


61.0 


% of Total 




72.3% 


8.9% 


9.0% 


5.7% 


1.5% 


2.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


458 


59 


53 


33 


16 


3 


622 


81.6 


53.0 


% of Total 




73.6% 


9.5% 


8.5% 


5.3% 


2.6% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 8 






















Greene 


Fel 


12) 


7 


45 


22 


11 





208 


114.4 


77.0 




Mis 


50 


15 


20 


17 


1 





103 


112.7 


94.0 


Lenoir 


Fel 


170 


39 


30 


32 


8 





279 


97.3 


63.0 




Mis 


294 


65 


61 


35 


1 





456 


84.7 


71.0 


Wayne 


Fel 


207 


92 


86 


47 


4 





436 


102.9 


91.0 




Mis 


255 


73 


70 


56 


7 





461 


98.7 


84.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


500 


138 


161 


101 


23 





923 


103.8 


84.0 


% of Total 




54.2% 


15.0% 


17.4% 


10.9% 


2.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


599 


153 


151 


108 


9 





1,020 


93.8 


77.0 


% of Total 




58.7% 


15.0% 


14.8% 


10.6% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 9 























Franklin 
Granville 
Person 
Vance 

Warren 



Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 



1 i5 

137 

97 

118 

40 

36 

147 

141 

30 

39 



4 9 
27 
34 
59 
21 
26 
38 
27 
6 
6 



34 
20 
41 
48 
13 
32 
67 
47 
9 
10 



20 
37 
39 
51 
37 
65 
15 
20 
14 
28 



6 

6 

5 

7 

45 

6 

10 

14 

23 



247 
234 
219 
284 
119 
204 
276 
251 
76 
109 



104.8 
134.4 
151.0 
131.0 
160.0 
217.0 
110.3 
121.1 
228.2 
248.9 



71.0 

78.0 

103.0 

107.0 

118.0 

191.0 

77.5 

77.0 

128.0 

168.0 



Dist Totals Fel 
% of Total 

Mis 
% of Total 



449 
47.9% 

471 
43.5% 



148 
15.8% 

145 
13.4% 



164 
17.5% 

157 
14.5% 



125 
13.3% 

201 
18.6% 



41 
4.4% 

89 
8.2% 



10 
1.1% 

19 
1.8% 



937 134.3 
100.0% 

1,082 157.5 
100.0% 



93.0 
107.0 



132 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 









Ages 


; or Disposi 


!d Cases (1 


Jays) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


365-730 


>730 


Age 


District 10 






















Wake 


Fel 


712 


307 


563 


623 


336 


13 


2,554 


187.8 


144.0 


% of Total 




27.9% 


12.0% 


22.0% 


24.4% 


13.2% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,311 


260 


375 


441 


186 


7 


2,580 


133.7 


87.0 


% of Total 




50.8% 


10.1% 


14.5% 


17.1% 


7.2% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 11 






















Harnett 


Fel 


246 


10 


9 


19 


3 





287 


57.3 


39.0 




Mis 


78 


4 


1 


1 








84 


39.5 


26.5 


Johnston 


Fel 


248 


42 


43 


11 


3 





347 


66.8 


46.0 




Mis 


197 


39 


23 


11 


1 


1) 


271 


64.9 


47.0 


Lee 


Fel 


258 


34 


28 


32 


1 


2 


355 


86.7 


62.0 




Mis 


135 


22 


35 


13 


2 


5 


212 


110. 


63.0 


Dlst Totals 


Fel 


752 


86 


80 


62 


7 


2 


989 


71.2 


47.0 


% of Total 




76.0% 


8.7% 


8.1% 


6.3% 


0.7% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


410 


65 


59 


25 


3 


5 


567 


78.0 


52.0 


% of Total 




72.3% 


11.5% 


10.4% 


4.4% 


0.5% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 12 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


660 


180 


247 


238 


6 b 


1 


1,392 


123.3 


96.0 




Mis 


300 


96 


83 


39 


14 


u 


532 


90.8 


76.0 


Hoke 


Fel 


73 


7 


10 


7 








97 


69.1 


55.0 




Mis 


31 


14 


16 


10 


1 





72 


103.8 


101.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


733 


187 


257 


245 


66 


1 


1,489 


119.8 


92.0 


% of Total 




49.2% 


12.6% 


17.3% 


16.5% 


4.4% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


331 


110 


99 


49 


15 





604 


92.3 


77.0 


% of Total 




54 . 8% 


18.2% 


16.4% 


8.1% 


2.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 13 






















Bladen 


Fel 


40 


38 


34 


14 


13 


1 


140 


145.2 


116.0 




Mis 


56 


9 


16 


12 


3 


1 


97 


112.2 


68.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


62 


37 


>4 8 


44 


13 


12 


216 


203.8 


131.0 




Mis 


25 


13 


L8 


22 


7 





85 


166.3 


126.0 


Columbus 


Fel 


71 


33 


36 


45 


3 





188 


121.2 


113.0 




Mis 


179 


48 


34 


20 


5 





286 


95.1 


83.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


173 


108 


118 


103 


29 


13 


544 


160.2 


119.0 


% of Total 




31.8% 


19.9% 


21.7% 


18.9% 


5.3% 


2.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


260 


70 


68 


54 


15 


1 


468 


111.6 


83.0 


% of Total 




55.6% 


15.0% 


14.5% 


11.5% 


3.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 14 






















Durham 


Fel 


588 


137 


152 


255 


91 


14 


1,237 


150.0 


96.0 


% of Total 




47.5% 


11.1% 


12.3% 


20.6% 


7.4% 


1.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


244 


65 


53 


70 


29 


4 


465 


134.7 


81.0 


% of Total 




52.5% 


14.0% 


11.4% 


15.1% 


6.2% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 15A 






















Alamance 


Fel 


303 


164 


237 


210 


22 





936 


137.2 


121.0 


% of Total 




32.4% 


17.5% 


25.3% 


22.4% 


2.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


278 


103 


107 


82 


8 





578 


106.6 


92.0 


% of Total 




48.1% 


17.8% 


18.5% 


14.2% 


1.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 15B 






















Chatham 


Fel 


91 


12 


41 


15 


2 





161 


106.4 


78.0 




Mis 


42 


6 


5 


2 








55 


66.8 


50.0 


Orange 


Fel 


178 


65 


92 


47 


6 





388 


110.2 


98.5 




Mis 


58 


3 


LI 


9 








81 


75.4 


48.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


269 


77 


133 


62 


8 





549 


109.1 


91.0 


% of Total 




49.0% 


14.0% 


24.2% 


11.3% 


1.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


100 


9 


16 


U 








136 


71.9 


48.0 


% of Total 




73.5% 


6.6% 


11.8% 


8.1% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







133 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



n-90 



Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 



91-120 121-180 181 365 365-730 



>730 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 
Age 



Median 
Age 



District 16 






















Robeson 


Fel 


758 


118 


32 


115 


14 





1,037 


81.4 


56.0 




Mis 


433 


74 


55 


46 


2 





610 


72.0 


62.0 


Scotland 


Fel 


79 


20 


69 


56 


14 


5 


243 


178.1 


134.0 




Mis 


41 


15 


27 


54 


29 


9 


175 


248.9 


187.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


837 


138 


101 


171 


28 


5 


1,280 


99.8 


63.0 


% of Total 




65.4% 


10.8% 


7.9% 


13.4% 


2.2% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


474 


89 


82 


100 


31 


9 


785 


111.4 


69.0 


% of Total 




60.4% 


11.3% 


10.4% 


12.7% 


3.9% 


1.1% 


100.0% 






District 17A 






















Caswell 


Fel 


117 


88 


2 


14 





1 


222 


89.0 


83.0 




Mis 


97 


20 


9 


1 








127 


60.9 


56.0 


Rockingham 


Fel 


462 


41 


47 


29 


1 


4 


584 


70.0 


51.5 




Mis 


372 


27 


45 


28 








472 


59.5 


41.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


579 


129 


49 


43 


1 


5 


806 


75.2 


64.0 


% of Total 




71.8% 


16.0% 


6.1% 


5.3% 


0.1% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


469 


47 


54 


29 








599 


59.8 


42.0 


% of Total 




78.3% 


7.8% 


9.0% 


4.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 17B 






















Stokes 


Fel 


159 


7 


23 


1 


1 





191 


53.4 


34.0 




Mis 


142 


34 


49 


15 








240 


85.6 


73.5 


Surry 


Fel 


313 


64 


43 


27 





3 


450 


87.3 


69.0 




Mis 


413 


58 


35 


25 


1 





532 


70.3 


63.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


472 


71 


66 


28 


1 


3 


641 


77.2 


60.0 


% of Total 




73.6% 


11.1% 


10.3% 


4.4% 


0.2% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


555 


92 


84 


40 


1 





772 


75.1 


63.0 


% of Total 




71.9% 


11.9% 


10.9% 


5.2% 


0.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 18 






















Guilford 


Fel 


1,511 


402 


653 


454 


105 


40 


3,165 


128.6 


97.0 


% of Total 




47.7% 


12.7% 


20.6% 


14.3% 


3.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


454 


108 


98 


106 


42 


6 


814 


116.1 


73.0 


% of Total 




55.8% 


13.3% 


12.0% 


13.0% 


5.2% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


Fel 


276 


142 


149 


67 


1 1 


3 


648 


119.9 


102.5 




Mis 


297 


188 


130 


91 


18 


1 


725 


118.7 


102.0 


Rowan 


Fel 


342 


73 


80 


46 


10 





551 


94.2 


71.0 




Mis 


400 


48 


37 


42 





1 


528 


75.5 


58.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


618 


215 


229 


113 


21 


3 


1,199 


108.1 


88.0 


% of Total 




51.5% 


17.9% 


19.1% 


9.4% 


1.8% 


0.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


697 


236 


167 


133 


18 


2 


1,253 


100.5 


78.0 


% of Total 




55.6% 


18.8% 


13.3% 


10.6% 


1.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 19B 






















Montgomery 


Fel 


54 


31 


L8 


189 


2 





294 


258.6 


364.0 




Mis 


L67 


60 


52 


41 


7 





327 


106.3 


90.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


145 


43 


206 


130 


36 


38 


598 


246.4 


149.0 




Mis 


570 


157 


121 


L34 


37 


19 


1,038 


125.0 


83.0 


Dist Totals 


F..-1 


199 


74 


224 


319 


38 


38 


892 


250.4 


159.0 


% of Total 




22.3% 


8.3% 


25.1% 


35.8% 


4.3% 


4.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


737 


217 


173 


175 


44 


19 


1,365 


120.5 


86.0 


X of Total 




54.0% 


15.9% 


12.7% 


12.8% 


3.2% 


1.4% 


100.0% 







134 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



0-90 



Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 



91-120 121-180 181-365 365-730 



.730 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 

Age 



Median 
Age 



District 20 



Anson 


Fel 


109 


37 


21 


20 


12 




1 


200 


113.3 


80.0 




Mis 


140 


33 


34 


69 


31 




1 


308 


150.0 


105.0 


Moore 


Fel 


299 


32 


71 


8 


9 




2 


421 


78.7 


48.0 




Mis 


297 


31 


18 


10 


6 




1 


363 


66.7 


47.0 


Richmond 


Fel 


448 


45 


58 


19 


2 




2 


574 


69.5 


46.0 




Mis 


355 


32 


38 


18 


2 







445 


62.5 


49.0 


Stanly 


Fel 


184 


23 


49 


14 


5 







275 


80.1 


54.0 




Mis 


306 


52 


39 


23 







l 


421 


69.1 


63.0 


Union 


Fel 


409 


42 


94 


32 


6 




2 


585 


79.5 


49.0 




Mis 


446 


40 


67 


39 


2 




I) 


594 


66.7 


40.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


1,449 


179 


293 


93 


34 




7 


2,055 


79.9 


50.5 


% of Total 




70.5% 


8.7% 


14.3% 


4.5% 


1.7% 





.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,544 


188 


196 


159 


41 




3 


2,131 


78.3 


49.0 


% of Total 




72.5% 


8.8% 


9.2% 


7.5% 


1.9% 





.1% 


100.0% 






District 21 
























Forsyth 


Fel 


1,642 


189 


98 


85 


9 







2,023 


68.9 


56.0 


% of Total 




81.2% 


9.3% 


4.8% 


4.2% 


0.4% 





.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


2,176 


99 


87 


71 


6 







2,439 


51.7 


41.0 


% of Total 




89 . 2% 


4.1% 


3.6% 


2.9% 


0.2% 





.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 
























Alexander 


Fel 


25 


1 


18 


14 


3 







61 


142.5 


145.0 




Mis 


87 


15 


19 


7 


4 




2 


134 


107.7 


53.0 


Davidson 


Fel 


125 


15 


51 


24 


7 




2 


224 


118.8 


90.0 




Mis 


373 


44 


52 


38 


7 







514 


75.3 


49.0 


Davie 


Fel 


43 


18 


18 


10 










89 


101.6 


92.0 




Mis 


50 


21 


16 


6 










93 


82.1 


55.0 


Iredell 


Fel 


149 


36 


67 


67 


23 




1 


343 


147.9 


103.0 




Mis 


412 


41 


50 


32 


5 




1 


541 


72.6 


50.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


342 


70 


154 


115 


33 




3 


717 


132.6 


97.0 


% of Total 




47.7% 


9.8% 


21.5% 


16.0% 


4.6% 





.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


922 


121 


137 


83 


16 




3 


1,282 


78.0 


52.0 


% of Total 




71.9% 


9.4% 


10.7% 


6.5% 


1.2% 





.2% 


100.0% 






District 23 
























Alleghany 


Fel 


16 


17 


17 


15 


5 







70 


155.7 


130.5 




Mis 


5 


2 


3 


10 


1 







21 


200.0 


219.0 


Ashe 


Fel 


46 


13 


14 


7 


4 







84 


100.6 


70.0 




Mis 


22 


8 


12 


17 


15 




5 


79 


263.1 


162.0 


Wilkes 


Fel 


90 


38 


43 


34 


9 




5 


219 


161.8 


100.0 




Mis 


24b 


59 


46 


94 


20 




16 


481 


163.2 


87.0 


Yadkin 


Fel 


28 


6 


24 


44 


7 




1 


110 


190.6 


169.0 




Mis 


49 


11 


16 


26 


4 




1 


107 


137.8 


103.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


180 


74 


98 


100 


25 




6 


483 


156.8 


107.0 


7. of Total 




37.3% 


15.3% 


20.3% 


20.7% 


5.2% 


1 


.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


322 


80 


77 


147 


40 




22 


688 


171.8 


103.0 


% of Total 




46.8% 


11.6% 


11.2% 


21.4% 


5.8% 


3 


.2% 


100.0% 






District 24 

























Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 



18 
12 
15 

7 
13 

8 

110 

30 

7 

9 



13 

5 

1 



4 



116 

13 

13 

2 



35 
2 

10 

7 


51 

17 
5 

12 



6 

23 

2 

7 

3 

51 

4 

26 

10 



9 


19 

2 
2 
5 
2 

10 



84 
26 
69 
9 
34 
13 
333 
66 
62 
44 



186.3 
153.6 
251.3 

76.6 
166.4 
161.2 
120.9 

99.1 
233.9 
281.3 



141.0 
91.0 

231.0 
29.0 

127.0 
66.0 
95.0 
96.5 

272.5 



154.0 



Dist Totals 
% of Total 



% of Total 



Fel 
Mis 



163 

28.0% 

66 

41.8% 



147 
25.3% 

20 
12.7% 



108 
18.6% 

31 
19.6% 



115 
19.8% 

25 
15.8% 



45 
7.7% 

12 
7.6% 



4 
0.7% 

4 
2.5% 



582 
100.0% 

158 
100.0% 



160.5 
162.6 



106.0 
104.0 



135 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) Total 

,730 Disposed 



0-90 



91-120 121-180 181-365 365-730 



Mean 
Age 



Median 
Age 



District 25 



Burke 


Fel 


61 


48 


58 


76 


3 


2 


248 


153.1 


136.0 




Mis 


117 


4.2 


70 


40 


5 


5 


279 


132.8 


102.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


200 


78 


90 


96 


15 


6 


485 


141.0 


105.0 




Mis 


169 


46 


66 


42 


6 





329 


104.7 


88.0 


Catawba 


Fel 


251 


123 


82 


107 


14 





577 


125.6 


100.0 




Mis 


396 


76 


56 


34 


15 


5 


582 


96.1 


70.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


512 


249 


230 


279 


32 


8 


1,310 


136.5 


107.0 


% of Total 




39.1% 


19.0% 


17.6% 


21.3% 


2.4% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


682 


164 


192 


116 


26 


10 


1,190 


107.1 


80.0 


% of Total 




57.3% 


13.8% 


16.1% 


9.7% 


2.2% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 26 






















Mecklenburg 


Fel 


1,058 


403 


545 


779 


205 


92 


3,082 


181.9 


126.0 


% of Total 




34.3% 


13.1% 


17.7% 


25.3% 


6.7% 


3.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


621 


132 


147 


185 


46 


25 


1,156 


140.1 


85.0 


% of Total 




53.7% 


11.4% 


12.7% 


16.0% 


4.0% 


2.2% 


100.0% 






District 27A 






















Gaston 


Fel 


849 


121 


181 


82 


14 


1 


1,248 


76.9 


58.0 


% of Total 




68.0% 


9.7% 


14.5% 


6.6% 


1.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


518 


86 


86 


58 


17 


4 


769 


89.9 


66.0 


% of Total 




67.4% 


11.2% 


11.2% 


7.5% 


2.2% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


305 


5 7 


51 


53 


2 


1 


469 


89.9 


69.0 




Mis 


176 


45 


71 


41 


4 





337 


104.2 


86.0 


Lincoln 


Fel 


98 


23 


16 


31 


2 





170 


105.4 


68.0 




Mis 


9 4 


22 


34 


43 


8 





201 


128.9 


95.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


403 


80 


67 


84 


4 


1 


639 


94.0 


68.5 


% of Total 




63.1% 


12.5% 


10.5% 


13.1% 


0.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


270 


67 


105 


84 


12 





538 


113.4 


90.0 


% of Total 




50.2% 


12.5% 


19.5% 


15.6% 


2.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Buncombe 


Fel 


402 


157 


145 


106 


22 


8 


840 


122.2 


94.0 


Z of Total 




47.9% 


18.7% 


17.3% 


12.6% 


2.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


274 


33 


44 


23 


2 





376 


76.3 


62.0 


% of Total 




72.9% 


8.8% 


11.7% 


6.1% 


0.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 























Henderson Fel 200 

Mis 87 

McDowell Fel 114 

Mis 101 

Polk Fel 6 

Mis 6 

Rutherford Fel 149 

Mis 135 

Transylvania Fel 26 

Mis 15 



24 
11 
23 
22 


48 
60 
12 
13 



89 
31 
29 
25 
6 
3 
46 
37 
11 
17 



49 
36 
29 

15 
LO 

3 
2 5 
24 
26 

9 



17 
6 
2 

5 
1 

13 
1 
3 



380 

171 

197 

163 

27 

14 

283 

257 

78 

62 



115.4 
124.7 
100.5 

86.6 
185.0 
248.6 
119.2 

91.8 
141.6 
162.3 



75.0 

90.0 

75.0 

64.0 

195.0 

137.5 

88.0 

88.0 

131.0 

124.5 



Dist Totals Fel 
% of Total 

Mis 
% of Total 



495 
51.3% 

344 
51.6% 



107 
11.1% 

106 
15.9% 



181 
18.8% 

113 
16.9% 



139 
14.4% 

87 
13.0% 



40 
4.1% 

16 
2.4% 



3 
0.3% 

1 
0.1% 



965 
100.0% 

667 
100.0% 



117.5 



106 



S.O 

1.5 



136 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 











Age 


s or Dispus 


ed Cases ( 


Uays) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181 365 


365-730 


>730 


Age 


District 


30 






















Cherokee 




Fel 


37 


17 


27 


6 


4 


6 


97 


150.9 


93.0 






Mis 


35 


4 


14 


8 


3 


3 


67 


140.5 


84.0 


Clay 




Fel 


10 


1 





1 








12 


78.3 


76.5 






Mis 


6 


4 


8 


3 








21 


126.0 


137.0 


Graham 




Fel 


20 





1 


L2 


1 





34 


151.6 


87.0 






Mis 


8 


2 


5 


20 


4 





39 


195.1 


199.0 


Haywood 




Fel 


135 


64 


39 


91 


28 


5 


362 


168.9 


113.0 






Mis 


70 


12 


35 


71 


22 


4 


214 


190.3 


158.5 


Jackson 




Fel 


66 


18 


20 


38 


17 





159 


152.1 


111.0 






Mis 


26 


12 


8 


10 








56 


110.3 


95.0 


Macon 




Fel 


51 


2 


9 


24 


7 





93 


122.1 


64.0 






Mis 


24 


3 


3 


12 


3 


1 


46 


154.0 


78.5 


Swain 




Fel 


12 





6 


5 


2 





25 


136.9 


126.0 






Mis 


6 





4 


2 








12 


92.2 


93.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


331 


102 


102 


177 


59 


11 


782 


154.5 


108.0 


% of 


Total 




42.3% 


13.0% 


13.0% 


22.6% 


7.5% 


1.4% 


100.0% 










Mis 


175 


37 


77 


126 


32 


8 


455 


164.3 


134.0 


% of 


Total 




38.5% 


8.1% 


16.9% 


27.7% 


7.0% 


1.8% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


21,543 


5,019 


6,243 


5,844 


1,611 


543 


40,603 


123.0 


84.0 


% of 


Total 




53.1% 


12.4% 


15.4% 


14 . 4% 


4.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 










Mis 


18,846 


3,488 


3,634 


3,325 


901 


172 


30,366 


124.4 


67.0 


% of 


Total 




62.1% 


11.5% 


12.0% 


10 . 9% 


3.0% 


0.6% 


100.0% 







137 



PART IV, Section 2 



District Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The District Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 1984-85 of cases filed and 
disposed of in the State's district courts, including those 
handled by magistrates. 

When the plaintiff in a civil case requests, and the 
amount in controversy does not exceed $1,500, the case 
may be classified as a "small claim" civil action and 
assigned to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates also 
have certain criminal case jurisdiction. They may accept 
written appearance and waiver of trial, with plea of guilty, 
and enter judgment in accord with the schedule of fines 
promulgated by chief district judges for traffic offenses; 
and effective July 1, 1984, for boating, hunting and fish- 
ing offenses. Also, magistrates may accept guilty pleas in 
other misdemeanor cases where the sentence cannot be in 
excess of 30 days or $50 fine; and may hear and enter 
judgment in worthless check cases where the amount 
involved is $500 or less, and any prison sentence imposed 
does not exceed 30 days. 

Appeals from magistrates' judgments in both civil and 
criminal cases are to the district court, with a district court 
judge presiding. 

This section contains data on three major case classifi- 
cations in the district court division: civil cases, juvenile 
proceedings, and criminal cases. Civil cases include cases 
assigned to magistrates (small claims as defined above), 
domestic relations cases (chiefly concerned with annul- 
ments, divorces, alimony, custody and support of chil- 
dren), and "general civil" cases. Juvenile proceedings are 
classified in accordance with the nature of the offense or 
condition alleged in the petition which initiates the case. 
District court criminal cases are divided into motor vehi- 
cle cases (where the offense charged is defined in Chapter 
20 of the North Carolina General Statutes) and non- 
motor criminal cases. 

Consistent with previous years, the pie charts on the 
following page illustrate that district court criminal cases 
filed and disposed of in the 1984-85 year greatly out- 
numbered civil cases. Motor vehicle criminal cases ac- 
counted for about fifty per cent of total filings and dispo- 
sitions, and the non-motor vehicle criminal cases ac- 
counted for about twenty-seven per cent. As in past years, 
the greatest portion of district court civil filings and dis- 
positions were small claims referred to magistrates. 

The large volume categories of criminal motor-vehicle 
and civil magistrate cases are not reported to AOC by case 
file numbers. Therefore, it is not possible to obtain, by 
computer processing, the numbers of pending cases as of 
a given date or the ages of cases pending and ages of cases 
at disposition. These categories of cases are processed 
through the courts faster than any others, thus explaining 
the decision not to allocate personnel and computer 
resource to reporting these cases in the detail that is 
provided for other categories of cases. 

Also, juvenile proceedings and hearings on commit- 
ment or recommitment of persons to the State's mental 



hospital facilities are not reported to AOC by case file 
numbers. 

Two tables are provided on juvenile proceedings: 
offenses and conditions alleged, and numbers of adjudi- 
catory hearings held. 

Data on district court hearings for mental hospital 
commitments and recommitments is reported in Part III, 
"Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents." 

Ages of district court cases pending on June 30, 1985, 
and ages of cases disposed of during 1984-85 are reported 
for the domestic relations, general civil and magistrate 
appeal/ transfer, and criminal non-motor vehicle case 
categories. 

The tables for domestic relations and general civil and 
magistrate appeal/ transfer cases show that the median 
age of such cases which were pending on June 30, 1985, 
was 149 and 152 days, respectively, compared with a 
median age of 156 days for general civil and domestic 
relations cases pending on June 30, 1984. At the time of 
disposition during 1984-85, the median age of domestic 
relations cases was 51 days, and the median age for gen- 
eral civil and magistrate/ transfer cases was 110 days, 
compared with a median age of 64.5 days at the time of 
disposition for general civil and domestic relations cases 
during 1983-84. 

For district court non-motor vehicle criminal cases, the 
median age for cases pending on June 30, 1985, was 48 
days compared with a median age of 44 days for cases 
pending on June 30, 1984. The median age of cases in this 
category at the time of disposition during 1984-85 was 27 
days compared with a median age of 26 days at the time of 
disposition during 1983-84. 

The Statewide total district court filings during 1984- 
85, not including juvenile cases, and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, and civil license revocations, was 
1 ,496,526 cases, compared with 1 ,450, 1 79 during 1983-84, 
an increase of 46,347 (3.2%). Most of this increase came in 
the non-motor vehicle criminal case category where fil- 
ings in 1983-84 amounted to 382,780 cases compared to 
412,534 cases filed in 1984-85, an increase of 29,754 
(7.8%) cases. There was an increase of 3,59 1 cases (0.5%) 
in the motor vehicle criminal case category. 

There also was an increase (4.4%) in district court civil 
case filings, from a total of 298,996 in 1 983-84 to 3 1 1 ,998 
in 1984-85. Most of this increase was in civil magistrate 
filings, from 194, 321 cases in 1983-84 to 204,071 cases in 
1984-85. In the domestic relations category, there was an 
increase of 6,024 cases in 1984-85 compared to the 
number in 1983-84. 

The changes from year-to-year in the individual case 
categories are not unusual. The over-all trend for total 
district court case filings over the past several years has 
been upward. This upward trend is reflected in the total 
1984-85 district court case filings. 



141 



FILING AND DISPOSITION IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 

FILINGS 



CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE 

412,534 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE 

204,071 




CRIMINAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

771,994 



CIVIL LICENSE REVOCATION 

58,093 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
65,063 
2.8% GENERAL CIVIL 
42,864 



DISPOSITIONS 



CRIMINAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

768,298 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 

61,878 




CIVIL MAGISTRATE 

202,032 



CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE 

404,274 



2.8% GENERAL CIVIL 

41,430 



Criminal cases, both motor vehicle and non-motor ve- 
hicle, dominate the district court caseload. 7b.2'/i of all 



district court Tilings and 79.3% of all district court dis- 
positions during fiscal year 1984-85 were criminal cases. 



142 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1975 — 1984-85 



2.0 



M 

1 

L 
L 

I 
O 

N 
S 



O 
F 



C 

A 
S 
E 
S 



1.5 



1.0 



0.5 



0.0 




81-82 



83-84 84-85 



All civil and criminal case filings and dispositions for 
the last decade, including traffic offenses and civil mag- 
istrate cases, are included in the above graph. The 
increase in filings and dispositions for fiscal year 1 984- 



85 is largely due to a 12.9% increase in criminal non- 
motor vehicle cases, although civil domestic and crimi- 
nal motor vehicle cases also increased. 



143 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CIVIL DISTRICT COURT CASES 

1975 - 1984-85 





360 




340 




320 




300 


I 


280 


H 






V 


260 


s 




A 


240 


N 




I) 
S 


220 


() 


200 


\ 


180 


c 

A 


160 


S 




[ 


140 


s 




t 


120 


s 






100 




80 








ALL CASES 




FILINGS 



--V 

DISPOSITIONS 




FILINGS 



FILINGS 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE 
CASES 



DISPOSITIONS 




DISPOSITIONS 



DOMESTIC AND 
OTHER CASES 



75 



76 



77 



7X 



78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 



Filings and dispositions of civil cases in the district courts growth in the number of civil magistrate cases appealed or 

increased for the first time since 1980-81, largely due to transferred. 



144 



CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1984 — June 30, 1985 



i 

H 
() 
U 

s 

A 

N 
I) 
S 



() 
F 



C 

A 

S 
F 

S 



70 



60 



50 



40 



30 



20 



10 



BEGIN PENDING 

FILINGS 
DISPOSITIONS 
END PENDING 



65,063 



61,878 



42,864 




41,430 



25,834 



23,075 



26,260 



GENERAL CIVIL AND 

CIVIL MAGISTRATE 

APPEALS/TRANSFERS 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



Filings exceeded dispositions in both general civil and 
domestic relations cases in the district courts, resulting in 
increases of pending caseloads in both categories. 



145 



FILINGS OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1,1984 — June 30, 1985 



i 

H 
O 
U 

s 

A 

N 
I) 
S 



O 



C 

A 
S 

} 

s 



50 



40 



30 



20 



10 




URESA 



1V-D 



OTHER 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



GENERAL MAGISTRATE 
CIVIL APPEALS/TRANSFERS 



% of Filings 



6.0 



10.8 



43.5 



36.9 



2.8 



"URESA" stands for the Uniform Reciprocal Enforce- 
ment of Support Act, and refers to actions enforcing 
inter-state child support order. "J V-D" refers to actions to 
collect child support for social services clients. The cate- 



gory "Other" includes civil actions such as annulment, 
divorce, equitable distribution of property, alimony, 
child support, and child custody. 



146 



CASELOAD INVENTORY EOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Domestic Relations Cases General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 





Begin 










End 


Begin 










End 




Pending 








% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 








% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/84 Filings 


Total 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/85 


7/1/84 Filings 


Total 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/85 


District 1 


























Camden 


16 


26 


42 


36 


85.7 


6 


4 


11 


15 


5 


33.3 


10 


Chowan 


34 


152 


186 


134 


72.0 


52 


74 


50 


124 


71 


57.3 


53 


Currituck 


31 


103 


134 


82 


61.2 


52 


24 


57 


81 


43 


53.1 


38 


Dare 


56 


156 


212 


150 


70.8 


62 


79 


151 


230 


115 


50.0 


115 


Gates 


21 


67 


88 


55 


62.5 


33 


16 


24 


40 


27 


67.5 


13 


Pasquotank 


115 


305 


420 


306 


72.9 


114 


89 


143 


232 


133 


57.3 


99 


Perquimans 


35 


86 


121 


68 


56.2 


53 


20 


47 


67 


24 


35.8 


43 


District Totals 


308 


895 


1,203 


831 


69.1 


372 


306 


483 


789 


418 


53.0 


371 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


158 


328 


486 


354 


72.8 


132 


125 


150 


275 


145 


52.7 


130 


Hyde 


30 


45 


75 


50 


66.7 


25 


21 


16 


37 


16 


43.2 


21 


Martin 


110 


314 


424 


320 


75.5 


104 


67 


74 


141 


73 


51.8 


68 


Tyrrell 


7 


25 


32 


22 


68.8 


10 


8 


8 


16 


10 


62.5 


6 


Washington 


24 


205 


229 


195 


85.2 


34 


38 


58 


96 


56 


58.3 


40 



District Totals 
District 3 



Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 



329 



371 

549 

70 

408 



917 



564 
986 
103 
744 



District Totals 
District 4 



1,398 2,397 



1,246 



935 
1,535 

173 
1,152 

3,795 



941 



456 
839 
109 
629 

2,033 



75.7 



48.8 
54.7 
63.0 
54.6 



305 



479 

696 

64 

523 



259 



121 

310 

24 

176 



306 



315 

798 
30 

546 



53.6 1,762 



631 1,689 



565 



436 

1,108 

54 

722 

2,320 



300 



314 

771 

39 

493 

1,617 



53.1 



72.0 
69.6 
72.2 
68.3 

69.7 



265 



122 

337 

15 

229 

703 



Duplin 


102 


320 


422 


298 


70.6 


124 


104 


167 


271 


164 


60.5 


107 


Jones 


56 


77 


133 


85 


63.9 


48 


22 


18 


4.0 


18 


45.0 


22 


Onslow 


906 


1,514 


2,420 


1,270 


52.5 


1,150 


388 


578 


966 


373 


38.6 


593 


Sampson 


139 


516 


655 


489 


74.7 


166 


102 


185 


287 


194 


67.6 


93 


District Totals 


1,203 


2,427 


3,630 


2,142 


59.0 


1,488 


616 


948 


1,564 


749 


47.9 


815 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


682 


1,327 


2,009 


1,264 


62.9 


745 


1,456 


1,804 


3,260 


2,130 


65.3 


1,130 


Pender 


115 


276 


391 


260 


66.5 


131 


125 


125 


250 


139 


55.6 


111 



District Totals 
District 6 



797 



1,603 



2.400 



1,524 



63.5 



876 



1,581 1,929 3,510 2,269 



1,059 2,210 



District Totals 

District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 651 2,253 



3,269 



2,904 



2,507 



21 


140 


161 


114 


266 


806 


1,072 


785 


364 


1,307 


1,671 


1,260 



2,159 



76.7 



74.3 



762 



70.8 


47 


73.2 


287 


75.4 


411 



745 



1,115 1,049 



607 1,270 



2,164 



4 


28 


32 


189 


511 


700 


414 


731 


1,145 



1,877 



1,469 



19 
458 
765 

1,242 



64.6 1,241 



Bertie 


66 


298 


364 


305 


83.8 


59 


26 


59 


85 


59 


69.4 


26 


Halifax 


237 


659 


896 


714 


79.7 


182 


76 


200 


276 


174 


63.0 


102 


Hertford 


94 


292 


386 


319 


82.6 


67 


81 


170 


251 


171 


68.1 


80 


Northampton 


53 


243 


296 


243 


82.1 


53 


20 


35 


55 


36 


65.5 


19 


District Totals 


450 


1,492 


1,942 


1,581 


81.4 


361 


203 


464 


667 


440 


66.0 


227 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 


379 


626 


1,005 


782 


77.8 


223 


329 


250 


579 


421 


72.7 


158 


Nash 


320 


695 


1,015 


809 


79.7 


206 


358 


434 


792 


524 


66.2 


268 


Wilson 


360 


889 


1,249 


91b 


73.3 


333 


428 


36 5 


793 


524 


66.1 


269 



67.9 



59.4 
65.4 
66.8 

66.2 



695 



13 

242 
380 

635 



147 



CASELOAD INVENTORY EOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Domestic Relations Cases General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 





Begin 












End 


Begin 












F.nd 




Pending 








<X 


Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 








% 


Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/84 Filings 


Total 


Disposed 


D 


isposed 


6/30/85 


7/1/84 Filings 


Total 


Disposed 


D 


isposed 


6/30/85 


District 9 






























Franklin 


51 


28 S 


336 


246 




73.2 


90 


99 


66 


165 


104 




63.0 


61 


Granville 


92 


274 


366 


252 




68.9 


114 


79 


140 


219 


141 




64.4 


78 


Person 


74 


251 


525 


272 




83.7 


53 


91 


122 


213 


149 




70.0 


64 


Vance 


129 


536 


665 


535 




80.5 


130 


84 


167 


251 


135 




53.8 


116 


Warren 


48 


20^ 


252 


164 




65.1 


88 


35 


42 


77 


48 




62.3 


29 



District Totals 394 1,550 1,944 1,469 75.6 475 388 537 925 577 62.4 348 

District 10 



Wake 


1,545 


3,720 


5,265 


3,386 


64.3 


1,879 


1,867 


3,731 


5,598 


3,698 


66.1 


1,900 


District 11 


























Harnett 


127 


632 


759 


582 


76.7 


177 


171 


389 


560 


380 


67.9 


180 


Johnston 


201 


868 


1,069 


819 


76.6 


250 


325 


606 


931 


694 


74.5 


237 


Lee 


108 


408 


516 


385 


74.6 


131 


311 


457 


768 


566 


73.7 


202 



District Totals 436 1,908 2,344 1,786 76.2 558 807 1,452 2,259 1,640 72.6 619 

District 12 



Cumberland 


2,069 


3,956 


6,025 


3,736 


62.0 


2,289 


885 


1,045 


1,930 


1,096 


56.8 


834 


Hoke 


50 


153 


203 


141 


69.5 


62 


41 


89 


130 


81 


62.3 


49 


District Totals 


2,119 


4,109 


6,228 


3,877 


62.3 


2,351 


926 


1,134 


2,060 


1,177 


57.1 


883 


District 13 


























Bladen 


50 


197 


247 


210 


85.0 


37 


90 


346 


436 


284 


65.1 


152 


Brunswick 


122 


400 


^^ 


337 


64.6 


185 


304 


558 


862 


406 


47.1 


456 


Columbus 


197 


644 


841 


611 


72.7 


230 


236 


418 


654 


320 


48.9 


334 


District Totals 


369 


1,241 


1,610 


1,158 


71.9 


452 


630 


1,322 


1,952 


1,010 


51.7 


942 


District 14 


























Durham 


847 


1,703 


2,550 


1,551 


60.8 


999 


1,005 


1,301 


2,306 


1,104 


47.9 


1,202 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


207 


1,090 


1,297 


1,079 


83.2 


218 


18 7 


661 


848 


575 


67.8 


273 


District 15B 


























Chatham 


117 


262 


379 


254 


67.0 


125 


101 


100 


201 


124 


61.7 


77 


Orange 


216 


529 


745 


541 


72.6 


204 


329 


490 


819 


547 


66.8 


272 


District Totals 


333 


791 


1,124 


795 


70.7 


329 


430 


590 


1,020 


671 


65.8 


349 


District 16 



























15 


848 


1,463 


998 


68.2 


465 


70 


171 


241 


158 


65.6 


83 



Robeson 276 1,128 1,404 1,139 81.1 265 

Scotland 96 366 462 365 79.0 97 

District Totals 372 1,494 1,866 1,504 80.6 362 685 1,019 1,704 1,156 67.8 548 

District 17a 



Caswell 


67 


176 


24 3 


174 


71.6 


69 


27 


57 


84 


46 


54.8 


38 


Rockingham 


217 


896 


1,113 


862 


77.4 


251 


144 


369 


513 


340 


66.3 


173 


District Totals 


284 


. ,072 


1,356 


1,036 


76.4 


320 


171 


426 


597 


386 


64.7 


211 


District 17B 


























Stokes 


52 


172 


224 


166 


74.1 


58 


57 


78 


135 


78 


57.8 


57 


Surry 


137 


,02 


639 


486 


76.1 


153 


173 


373 


546 


382 


70.0 


164 



District Totals 189 674 863 652 75.6 211 230 451 681 460 67.5 221 



148 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Domestic Relations Cases General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending % Caseload Pending Pending % Caseload Pending 

7/1/84 Filings Total Disposed Disposed 6/30/85 7/1/84 Filings Total Disposed Disposed 6/30/85 



District 18 


























Guilford 


1,139 


3,771 


4,910 


3,282 


66.8 


1,628 


1,713 


3,993 


5,706 


3,347 


58.7 


2,359 


District 19A 


























Cabarrus 


361 


1,025 


1,386 


1,025 


74.0 


361 


365 


388 


753 


458 


60.8 


295 


Rowan 


228 


931 


1,159 


857 


73.9 


302 


276 


435 


711 


336 


47.3 


375 



District Totals 

District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 

District Totals 

District 20 



Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 



589 1,956 



16 
191 



207 



73 
201 
267 
143 
231 



182 
669 



851 



240 
476 
494 
378 

606 



2,545 



198 
860 

1,058 



313 

677 
761 
521 
837 



1,882 



132 

677 



809 



240 
424 
490 
351 
583 



73.9 



66.7 
78.7 



76.5 



76.7 
62.6 
64.4 
67.4 
69.7 



663 



66 
183 



249 



73 

253 
271 
170 
254 



641 



222 



61 
295 
212 
255 

29 5 



823 



425 



89 
341 
243 
300 
379 



1,464 



647 



150 
636 
455 
555 
674 



794 



429 



80 
234 
174 
306 
365 



54.2 



66.3 



53.3 
36.8 
38.2 

55.1 
54.2 



670 



HI 


152 


263 


158 


60.1 


105 


111 


273 


384 


271 


70.6 


113 



218 



70 
402 
281 
249 
309 



District Totals 
District 21 



Forsyth 



915 2,194 



839 3,000 



3,109 



2,< 



3,839 2,791 



67.2 1,021 



72.7 1,048 



1,118 1,352 



1,324 2,374 



2,470 



3,698 



1,159 



2,316 



46.9 



62.6 



1,311 



1,382 



District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 



63 
196 

108 
174 



204 
971 
168 
686 



267 

1,167 

276 

860 



209 
844 
206 
635 



78.3 
72.3 
74.6 
73.8 



58 
323 

70 
225 



16 


60 


76 


52 


68.4 


24 


155 


415 


570 


359 


63.0 


211 


99 


125 


224 


145 


64.7 


79 


274 


519 


793 


540 


68.1 


253 



District Totals 541 2,029 



District 23 



2,570 



1,894 



73.7 



676 



544 1,119 



1,663 



1,096 



Avery 58 141 199 131 65.8 68 

Madison 46 29 75 51 68.0 24 

Mitchell 26 92 118 76 64.4 42 

Watauga 99 267 366 249 68.0 117 

Yancey 30 116 146 117 80.1 29 

District Totals 259 645 904 624 69.0 280 



267 



599 



866 



532 



65.9 



61.4 



567 



Alleghany 




19 


66 


85 


67 


78.8 


18 


24 


86 


110 


63 


57.3 


47 


Ashe 




24 


171 


195 


156 


80.0 


39 


38 


60 


98 


60 


61.2 


38 


Wilkes 




99 


486 


585 


477 


81.5 


108 


221 


576 


797 


574 


72.0 


223 


Yadkin 




49 


220 


269 


214 


79.6 


55 


68 


111 


179 


113 


63.1 


66 


District 


Totals 


191 


943 


1,134 


914 


80.6 


220 


351 


833 


1,184 


810 


68.4 


374 


District 24 





























66 


157 


223 


128 


57.4 


95 


31 


95 


126 


89 


70.6 


37 


23 


69 


92 


50 


54.3 


42 


22 


262 


384 


240 


62.5 


144 


25 


16 


41 


25 


61.0 


16 



334 



District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 



208 


634 


842 


584 


69.4 


258 


300 


672 


972 


659 


67.8 


313 


429 


1,194 


1,623 


1,200 


73.9 


423 


937 


2,500 


3,437 


2,443 


71.1 


994 


109 


5,443 


6,552 


5,103 


77.9 


1,449 



162 


318 


480 


286 


61.7 


184 


213 


361 


574 


403 


70.2 


171 


450 


756 


1,206 


81b 


67.7 


390 



825 1,435 



2,260 



1,515 



2,850 5,684 3,534 5,259 



67.0 



61.6 



745 



3,275 



149 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Domestic Relations Cases General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending % Caseload Pending Pending % Caseload Pending 

7/1/84 Filings Total Disposed Disposed 6/30/85 7/1/84 Filings Total Disposed Disposed 6/30/8S 



District 


27A 


Gaston 




District 


27B 



638 2,310 2,948 2,082 



70.6 



866 



341 613 



954 



605 



63.4 



349 



Cleveland 


327 


824 


1,151 


922 


80.1 


229 


130 


252 


382 


260 


68.1 


122 


Lincoln 


75 


362 


437 


364 


83.3 


73 


41 


152 


193 


131 


67.9 


62 


District Totals 


402 


1,186 


1,588 


1,286 


81.0 


302 


171 


404 


575 


391 


68.0 


184 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


543 


1,974 


2,517 


1,838 


73.0 


679 


449 


1,202 


1,651 


1,028 


62.3 


623 


District 29 


























Henderson 


4b4 


558 


1,022 


736 


72.0 


286 


270 


272 


542 


292 


53.9 


250 


McDowell 


102 


282 


384 


294 


76.6 


90 


63 


110 


173 


90 


52.0 


83 


Polk 


23 


83 


106 


86 


81.1 


20 


19 


53 


72 


46 


63.9 


26 


Rutherford 


171 


471 


b42 


428 


66.7 


214 


111 


139 


250 


141 


56.4 


109 


Transylvania 


109 


230 


3 39 


206 


60.8 


133 


91 


154 


245 


110 


44.9 


135 


District Totals 


869 


1,624 


2,493 


1,750 


70.2 


743 


554 


728 


1,282 


679 


53.0 


603 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


73 


lbU 


233 


169 


72.5 


64 


10 


69 


79 


51 


64.6 


28 


Clay 


25 


21 


46 


33 


71.7 


13 


3 


3 b 


39 


23 


59.0 


16 


Graham 


21 


57 


78 


54 


69.2 


24 


11 


20 


31 


21 


67.7 


10 


Haywood 


236 


400 


b36 


)65 


57.4 


271 


181 


156 


337 


200 


59.3 


137 


Jackson 


75 


175 


250 


L76 


70.4 


74 


48 


88 


136 


74 


54.4 


62 


Macon 


85 


180 


265 


164 


61.9 


101 


84 


119 


203 


107 


52.7 


96 


Swain 


92 


98 


19(1 


120 


63.2 


70 


49 


30 


79 


36 


45.6 


43 


District Totals 


607 


1,091 


1,698 


1,081 


63.7 


617 


386 


518 


904 


512 


56.6 


392 


State Totals 23 


,075 


65,063 


88,138 


61,878 


70.2 


26,260 


24,400 


42,864 


67,264 


41,430 


61.6 


25,834 



150 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL 
(NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 

OTHER 

7,285 



JUDGE'S FINAL ORDER/ 
JUDGMENT WITHOUT TRIAL 

21,362 



VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

18,452 




TRIAL BY JUDGE 

42,107 cases 



TRIAL BY JURY 

722 cases 



CLERK 

13,380 cases 



Most civil cases in the district courts are disposed of by 
judges, either before trial or with a bench trial. Only 722 



jury trials were held in district courts for civil cases during 
the 1984-85 year. 



151 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Tri.il by 
lurv 



Trial by 
Judge 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



Judge's Final 

Order or 

Judgment 

without Trial 



Clerk 



Olher 



Total 
Disposed 



District 1 



Camden 


Dora 





6 


3 


18 





9 


31, 




Gen 





1 


4 











5 


Chowan 


Don 





9 


14 


108 





3 


134 




Gen 





8 


33 


10 


15 


5 


71 


Currituck 


Don 





49 


12 


11 


o 


10 


82 




Gen 





6 


19 


5 


9 


4 


43 


Dare 


Dora 





33 


27 


61 





29 


150 




Gen 





11 


51 


18 


30 


5 


115 


Gates 


Do ra 


__; 


L8 


3 


2 





30 


55 




Gen 


1 


5 


10 





10 


1 


27 


Pasquotank 


Dora 





167 


27 


108 





4 


306 




Gen 


1 


12 


55 


7 


52 


6 


133 


Perquimans 


Dora 





33 


6 


27 





2 


68 




Gen 


1 


1 


4 


1 


11 


6 


24 


Dist Totals 


Dora 


2 


315 


92 


335 





87 


831 


X of Total 




0.2% 


37.9% 


11.1% 


40.3% 


0.0% 


10.5% 


100.0% 




Gen 


3 


44 


176 


41 


127 


27 


418 


X of Total 




0.7% 


10.5% 


42.1% 


9.8% 


30.4% 


6.5% 


100.0% 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


Dom 





262 


20 


49 


1 


22 


TS4 




lien 


4 


26 


49 


16 


44 


6 


145 


Hyde 


Dom 








5 


38 


o 


7 


50 




Gen 


1 





3 


4 


6 


2 


16 


Martin 


Dora 


3 


28 


10 


244 


4 


31 


320 




Gen 





1 


9 


20 


24 


19 


73 


Tyrrell 


Dora 





2 


1 


14 


1 


4 


22 




Gen 





1 


5 


3 


1 





10 


Washington 


Dora 





54 


10 


128 





3 


195 




Gen 


2 


ID 


19 


13 


9 


3 


56 


Dist Totals 


Dora 


3 


346 


46 


473 


6 


67 


941 


Z of Total 




0.3% 


36.8% 


4.9% 


50.3% 


0.6% 


7.1% 


100.0% 




Gen 


7 


33 


85 


56 


84 


30 


300 


% of Total 




2.3% 


12.7% 


28.3% 


18.7% 


28.0% 


10.0% 


100.0% 


District 3 


















Carteret 


Dom 





364 


53 


34 


2 


3 


456 




Gen 


5 


54 


104 


17 


104 


30 


314 


Craven 


Dora 


1 


522 


hi 


214 


4 


37 


839 




Gen 


13 


34 


248 


55 


324 


97 


771 


Pamlico 


Dora 





39 


5 


58 


1 


6 


109 




Gen 


<J 


8 


14 


3 


5 


9 


39 


Pitt 


[Join 





499 


32 


83 


1 


12 


629 




Gen 





65 


179 


154 


9', 





49) 


Dist Totals 


Dora 


1 


1,424 


151 


389 


10 


58 


2,033 


7. of Total 




.0% 


70.0% 


7.4% 


19.1% 


0.5% 


2.9% 


100.0% 




Gen 


18 


161 


545 


229 


528 


136 


1,617 


X of Total 




1.1% 


10.0% 


33.7% 


14.2% 


32.7% 


8.4% 


100.0% 


District 4 



















Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



Dom 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 

Gen 



45 

14 

3 

3 

919 

88 

277 

29 



17 
49 
10 
4 
82 
127 
54 
92 



224 

44 

68 

1 

178 
16 

1 15 
13 



1 

4 1 
1 

8 

4 

104 

3 

52 



11 
11 
3 
2 
87 
35 

19 

5 



298 

164 

85 

18 

1,270 

373 

489 

1 94 



Dist Totals 
X of Total 



% of Total 



Don 



1 

.OX 

11 

1.5% 



1,244 
58.1% 

134 
17.9% 



163 

7.6% 

272 

36.3% 



605 

28.2% 

74 

9.9% 



9 

0.4% 

205 

27.4% 



120 
5.6% 

53 
7.1% 



2,142 
100.0% 

749 
100.0% 



♦Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



152 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 





July 1, 1984 - 


June 30, 1985 

Judge's Final 
Order or 


Trial bv 


Trial by Voluntary 


Judgment 


Jury 


Judge Dismissal 


without Trial 



Clerk 



Other 



Total 
Disposed 



District 5 



New Hanover 


Dom 


2 


804 




Gen 


23 


142 


Pender 


Dom 


9 


93 




Gen 


4 


15 


Dist Totals 


Dom 


11 


897 


% of Total 




0.7% 


58 . 9% 




Gen 


27 


157 


% of Total 




1.2% 


6.9% 


District 6 








Bertie 


Dom 


2 


83 




Gen 


2 


8 


Halifax 


Dora 





225 




Gen 





34 


Hertford 


Dom 





137 




Gen 


2 


22 


Northampton 


Dom 


1 


216 




Gen 





9 


Dist Totals 


Dora 


3 


661 


% of Total 




0.2% 


41.8% 




Gen 


4 


73 


% of Total 




0.9% 


16.6% 


District 7 








Edgecombe 


Dom 





251 




Gen 


3 


22 


Nash 


Dora 


5 


436 




Gen 


6 


32 


Wilson 


Dora 


1 


456 




Gen 


3 


57 


Dist Totals 


Dom 


6 


1,143 


% of Total 




0.2% 


45.6% 




Gen 


12 


111 


% of Total 




0.8% 


7.6% 


District 8 








Greene 


Dom 





10 




Gen 





2 


Lenoir 


Dom 


1 


509 




Gen 


5 


84 


Wayne 


Dom 


8 


728 




Gen 


8 


82 


Dist Totals 


Dora 


9 


1,247 


% of Total 




0.4% 


57.8% 




Gen 


13 


168 


% of Total 




1.0% 


13.5% 


District 9 









Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



Dist Totals 
% of Total 



i of Total 



Dom 
Gen 
Dora 
Gen 
Dora 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dora 
Gen 

Dom 

Gen 





2 
6 
5 
2 

2 

2 

7 
0.5% 

12 
1.1% 



1 


102 
26 

231 
42 

282 
34 
60 
15 

676 
46.0% 

117 
20.3% 



92 

672 

29 

hj 

121 

7.9% 

735 

32.4% 



29 
12 
21 
38 
23 
51 
5 
9 

78 

4.9% 

110 

25.0% 



71 
136 

38 
130 

65 

98 

174 

6.9% 

364 

24 . 8% 



8 
1 

71 
127 
174 
313 

253 
11.7% 

441 
35.5% 



25 
46 
28 
41 
19 
39 
34 
46 
21 
17 

127 

8.6% 

189 

32. 85! 



275 

180 

118 

21 

393 

25.8% 
201 
8.9% 



170 

13 

401 

34 

108 

4 

7 

5 

686 
43.4% 

56 
12.7% 



250 
33 

167 
32 

287 
30 

704 

28.1% 

95 

6.5% 



85 

12 

193 

34 

269 
87 

547 
25.3% 

133 
10.7% 



216 
41 
41 
15 

4 

1 
189 

8 
80 

6 

530 
36.1% 

71 
12. 32 



5 

604 



36 

5 
0.3% 
640 
28.2% 



15 
21 

3 
52 

5 
83 


13 

23 

1.5% 

169 

38.4% 



1 
89 

8 
153 

5 
167 

14 

0.6% 

409 

27.8% 




2 
9 

203 
25 

20b 

34 

1.6% 

411 

33.1% 



3 
17 
56 
44 

3 
49 

2 
32 

1 

4 

65 

4.4% 

146 

2 5.3% 



86 


1,264 


509 


2,130 


11 


260 





139 


97 


1,524 


6.4% 


100.0% 


509 


2,269 


22.4% 


100.0% 


6 


305 


3 


59 


b4 


714 


16 


174 


46 


319 


9 


171 


14 


243 





36 


130 


1,581 


8.2% 


100.0% 


28 


440 


6.4% 


100.0% 


209 


782 


138 


421 


155 


809 


171 


524 


102 


916 


169 


524 


466 


2,507 


18.6% 


100.0% 


478 


1,469 


32.5% 


100.0% 


11 


114 


2 


19 


2 


785 


5 


458 


5 b 


1,260 


69 


765 


69 


2,159 


3.2% 


100.0% 


76 


1,242 


6.1% 


100.0% 


1 


246 





104 


23 


252 


9 


141 


10 


272 


16 


149 


28 


535 


13 


135 


2 


164 


4 


48 


64 


1,469 


4.4% 


100.0% 


42 


577 


7.3% 


100.0% 



*Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges, 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



all 



153 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 









July 


1, 1984 - 


J 


une 30, 1985 












Trial by 
Jury 


Trial by 
Judge 




Voluntary 
Dismissal 




Judge's Final 

Order or 

Judgment 

without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Total 
Disposed 


District 10 
Wake 

% of Total 

X of Total 


Dom 
Gen 


4 
0.1% 

19 
0.5% 


1,752 
51.7% 
91 
2.5% 




156 
4.6% 
1,125 
30.4% 




970 
28.6% 

643 
17.4% 


5 
0.1% 
1,367 

37.0% 


499 

14.8% 

453 

12.2% 


3,386 
100.0% 
3,698 
100.0% 



District 11 



Harnett 


Dom 


4 


348 


58 


149 


9 


14 


582 




Gen 


9 


59 


170 


58 


82 


2 


380 


Johnston 


Dora 


6 


330 


92 


350 


18 


23 


819 




Gen 


4 


65 


258 


142 


218 


7 


694 


Lee 


Dom 





227 


37 


73 


3 


45 


385 




Gen 


12 


69 


193 


56 


231 


5 


566 


Dist Totals 


Dom 


10 


905 


187 


572 


30 


82 


1,786 


% of Total 




0.6% 


50 . 7% 


10.5% 


32.0% 


1.7% 


4.6% 


100.0% 




Gen 


25 


193 


621 


256 


531 


14 


1,640 


% of Total 




1.5% 


11.8% 


37.9% 


15.6% 


32.4% 


0.9% 


100.0% 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


Dom 


1 


2,640 


395 


404 


24 


272 


3,736 




Gen 


9 


302 


341 


27 


334 


83 


1,096 


Hoke 


Dora 


5 


91 


18 


12 


3 


12 


141 




Gen 


2 


15 


20 


2 


40 


2 


81 


Dist Totals 


Dora 


6 


2,731 


413 


416 


27 


284 


3,877 


% of Total 




0.2% 


70.4% 


10.7% 


10.7% 


0.7% 


7.3% 


100.0% 




Gen 


i: 


317 


361 


29 


374 


85 


1,177 


% of Total 




0.9% 


26.9% 


30.7% 


2.5% 


31.8% 


7.2% 


100.0% 


District 13 


















Bladen 


Dora 





94 


14 


96 


1 


5 


210 




Gen 


2 


46 


55 


29 


145 


7 


284 


Brunswick 


Dora 





196 


28 


109 


2 


2 


337 




Gen 


7 


41 


251 


26 


80 


1 


406 


Columbus 


Dom 





374 


66 


145 


1 


25 


611 




Gen 


15 


57 


101 


26 


116 


5 


320 


Dist Totals 


Dora 





664 


108 


350 


4 


32 


1,158 


% of Total 




0.0% 


57.3% 


9.3% 


30.2% 


0.3% 


2.8% 


100.0% 




Gen 


24 


144 


407 


81 


341 


13 


1,010 


Z of Total 




2.4% 


14.3% 


40.3% 


8.0% 


33.8% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


District 14 


















Durham 


Dora 


1 


1,049 


94 


311 


6 


90 


1,551 


% of Total 




0.1% 


67.6% 


6.1% 


20.1% 


0.4% 


5.8% 


100.0% 




Gen 


5 


120 


334 


30 


557 


58 


1,104 


% of Total 




0.5% 


10.9% 


30.3% 


2.7% 


50.5% 


5.3% 


100.0% 


District 15A 


















Alamance 


Dom 


1 


731 


91 


251 


3 


2 


1,079 


% of Total 




0.1% 


67.7% 


8.4% 


23.3% 


0.3% 


0.2% 


100.0% 




Gen 


4 


68 


212 


65 


226 





575 


Z of Total 




0.7% 


11.8% 


36.9% 


11 . 3% 


39.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 


District 15B 



















Chatham 



Orange 



Dora 
Gen 
Dora 
Gen 



134 
12 

302 
84 



18 

46 

31 

158 



71 

8 

16 



1 

JO 

64 

129 



30 

25 

127 

165 



254 
124 
541 
54 7 



Dist Totals Dora 1 436 49 

% of Total 0.1% 54.8% 6.2% 

Gen 6 96 204 

X of Total 0.9% 14.3% 30.4% 



87 

10.9% 

16 

2.4% 



65 

8.2% 

159 

23.7% 



157 

19.7% 

190 
28.3% 



795 

100.0% 

671 
100.0% 



♦Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



all 



154 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Judge's Final 
Order or 
Trial by Trial by Voluntary Judgment Total 

Jury Judge Dismissal without Trial Clerk Other Disposed 



District 16 










Robeson 


Dom 




3 


569 




Gen 




9 


156 


Scotland 


Dom 




1 


184 




Gen 




1 


11 


Dlst Totals 


Dom 




4 


753 


% of Total 







.3% 


50.1% 




Gen 




10 


167 


X of Total 







.9% 


14.4% 


District 17A 










Caswell 


Dom 







46 




Gen 




1 


6 


Rockingham 


Dom 







494 




Gen 




5 


44 


Dist Totals 


Dom 







540 


% of Total 







.0% 


52.1% 




Gen 




6 


50 


% of Total 




1 


.6% 


13.0% 


District 17B 










Stokes 


Dora 




6 


102 




Gen 




1 


14 


Surry 


Dom 







253 




Gen 




4 


35 


Dist Totals 


Dora 




6 


355 


% of Total 







.97. 


54.4% 




Gen 




5 


49 


% of Total 




1 


. 1% 


10.7% 


District 18 










Guilford 


Dom 




4 


2,747 


% of Total 







. 1% 


83.7% 




Gen 




32 


318 


% of Total 




1 


.0% 


9.5% 



112 

306 

16 

36 

128 

8.5% 

342 

29.6% 



9 
15 
62 
91 

71 

6.9% 

106 

27.5% 



19 
23 
52 

122 

71 
10.9% 

145 
31.5% 



195 

5.9% 

965 

28.8% 



396 
58 

121 
36 

517 

34.4% 

94 

8.1% 



96 

10 

242 

15 

338 

32.6% 

25 

6.5% 



30 

7 

162 

15 

192 

29.4% 

22 

4.8% 



230 

7.0% 

448 

13.4% 



7 

409 

3 

65 

10 

0.7% 

474 

41.0% 



1 

5 

6 

175 

7 
0.7% 
180 
46.6% 





26 

1 

180 

1 
0.2% 
206 

44 . 8% 



24 
0.7% 
1,529 

45.7% 



52 

60 

40 

9 

92 

6.1% 

69 

6.0% 



22 

9 

58 

L0 

80 

7.7% 

19 

4.9% 



9 

7 
18 
26 

27 

4.1% 

33 

7.2% 



82 
2.5% 

55 
1.6% 



1,139 
998 
365 
158 

1,504 

100.0% 

1,156 

100.0% 



174 
46 

862 
340 

1,036 
100.0% 
386 

100.0% 



166 

78 

486 

382 

652 
100.0% 

460 
100.0% 



3,282 

100.0% 

3,347 

100.0% 



District 19A 



Cabarrus 


Dom 







Gen 


11 


Rowan 


Dora 


1 




Gen 


6 


Dist Totals 


Dom 


1 


% of Total 




0.1% 




Gen 


17 


% of Total 




2.1% 


District 19B 







Montgomery 
Randolph 



Dist Totals 
% of Total 



% of Total 



Dom 
Gen 

Dora 
Gen 

Dora 

Gen 



1 




4 

1 
0.1% 

4 
0.9% 



630 
85 

631 
59 

1,311 
69.7% 

144 
18.1% 



1L4 
73 

347 
32 

461 
57.0% 

105 
24 . 5% 



93 

160 

77 

106 

170 

9.0% 

266 

33.5% 



5 

54 
65 

80 

70 

8.7% 

134 

31.2% 



201 

41 

65 

4 

266 

14.1% 

45 

5.7% 



11 

10 

170 

12 

181 

22.4% 

22 

5.1% 



9 

150 

13 

147 

22 

1.2% 

297 

37.4% 



1 

19 

3 

123 

4 
0.5% 
142 
33.1% 



42 


1,025 


11 


458 


70 


857 


14 


336 


112 


1,882 


6.0% 


100.0% 


25 


794 


3.1% 


100.0% 





132 


2 


158 


92 


677 


20 


271 


92 


809 


1.4% 


100.0% 


22 


429 


5.1% 


100.0% 



*Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



all 



155 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 









Judge's Final 








Order or 


Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 


Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 



District 20 



Anson 


Dora 


1 


116 




Gen 


2 


8 


Moore 


Dora 


2 


326 




Gen 


9 


74 


Richmond 


[lorn 


1 


344 




Gen 


1 


33 


Stanly 


Dora 


1 


209 




Gen 


1 


L5 


Union 


Dom 


8 


362 




Gen 


19 


51 


Dist Totals 


Dom 


13 


1,357 


% of Total 




0.6% 


65.0% 




Gen 


32 


181 


% of Total 




2.8% 


15.6% 


District 21 








Forsyth 


Dora 


5 


1,888 


% of Total 




0.2% 


67.6% 




Gen 


17 


117 


% of Total 




0.7% 


5.1% 


District 22 








Alexander 


Dom 


2 


99 




Gen 


2 


3 


Davidson 


Dora 


3 


485 




Gen 


9 


67 


Davie 


Dom 


2 


110 




Gen 


8 


30 


Iredell 


Dora 


2 


191 




Gen 


11 


93 


Dist Totals 


Dom 


9 


1,085 


% of Total 




0.5% 


57.3% 




l.en 


30 


193 


% of Total 




2.7% 


17.6% 


District 23 








Alleghany 


Dom 





44 




Gen 


2 


19 


Ashe 


Don 


1 


108 




Gen 


1 


12 


Wilkes 


Dom 





331 




Gen 


16 


53 


Yadkin 


Dom 





115 




Gen 


5 


19 


Dist Totals 


Dom 


1 


598 


% of Total 




0.1% 


65.4% 




Gen 


24 


103 


7, of Total 




3.0% 


12.7% 


District 24 









Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



Dist Totals 
% of Total 



7, of Total 



Dom 
',.•11 
Dora 
Gen 
[join 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 

Dom 

Gen 






1 

2 
1 
1 
2 
4 

3 
0.5% 

8 
1.5% 



84 

20 

2 



7 

1 

137 

24 

62 

6 

292 

46.8% 

51 

9.6% 



15 
31 
20 

69 
33 
58 

10 

89 

69 

141 

147 

7.0% 

388 

33.5% 



231 

8.3% 

879 

38 . 0% 



18 

20 
75 

120 
41 
53 
64 

172 

198 
10.5% 

365 
33.3% 



16 
16 
19 

47 

155 

19 

32 

90 

9.8% 

222 

27.4% 



12 
46 

5 
16 
11 
18 
27 
129 
16 

4 

71 

11.4% 

213 

40.0% 



89 
15 
67 
22 
77 
10 
49 
19) 
132 
34 

414 
19.8% 

274 
23.6% 



606 
21.7% 

296 
12.8% 



78 

8 
200 
41 
If, 
16 
147 
28 

461 

24.3% 

93 

8.5% 



6 
4 
27 
h) 
86 
132 
66 
21 

185 
20.2% 

167 
20.6% 



9 

29 
31 
60 
54 
27 
52 
20 
21 
4 

167 
26.8% 

140 
26.3% 



Clerk 



14 

24 

1 

55 

25 

54 





7 

107 

47 

2.3% 

240 

20.7% 



20 

0.7% 

991 

42.8% 



3 

17 

6 

107 

4 

JO 

7 

214 

20 

1.1% 

368 

33.6% 




15 

4 
17 

9 
207 

2 
33 

15 

1.6% 

272 

33.6% 



1 
30 
2 
3 

2 
2 
57 

1 

5 

0.8% 

93 

17.5% 





Total 


)ther 


Disposed 


5 


240 





80 


8 


424 


5 


234 


10 


490 


18 


174 


82 


351 


8 


306 


5 


583 


13 


365 


110 


2,088 


5.3% 


100.0% 


44 


1,159 


3.8% 


100.0% 


41 


2,791 


1.5% 


100.0% 


16 


2,316 


0.7% 


100.0% 



9 


209 


2 


52 


75 


844 


15 


359 


13 


206 


8 


145 


24 


635 


22 


540 


121 


1,894 


6.4% 


100.0% 


47 


1,096 


4.3% 


100 . 0% 


9 


67 


7 


63 





156 


1 


60 


4 


477 


11 


574 


12 


214 


3 


113 


25 


914 


2.7% 


100.0% 


22 


810 


2.7% 


100.0% 


25 


131 


3 


128 


11 


51 


9 


89 


4 


76 





50 


30 


249 


9 


240 


16 


117 


6 


25 


86 


624 


13.8% 


100.0% 


27 


532 


5.1% 


100.0% 



*Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges, all 
identified as (GEH), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



156 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS** 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Trial by 
Jury 



Trial by 
Judge 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



Judge's Final 
Order or 
Judgment 

without Trial 



Clerk 



Other 



Total 
Disposed 



District 25 



Burke 


Dom 


6 


365 


78 


114 


4 


17 


584 




Gen 


3 


50 


137 


12 


91 


3 


296 


Caldwell 


Dom 


3 


309 


37 


269 


3 


38 


659 




Gen 


10 


46 


99 


68 


94 


86 


403 


Catawba 


Dora 


5 


757 


113 


308 


4 


13 


1,200 




Gen 


10 


94 


239 


89 


3S5 


29 


816 


Dist Totals 


Dora 


14 


1,431 


228 


691 


11 


68 


2,443 


% of Total 




0.6% 


58.6% 


9.3% 


28.3% 


0.5% 


2.8% 


100.0% 




Gen 


23 


190 


475 


169 


540 


118 


1,515 


% of Total 




1.5% 


12.5% 


31.4% 


11.2% 


35.6% 


7.8% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


Dora 


18 


3,838 


229 


687 


5 


326 


5,103 


% of Total 




0.4% 


75.2% 


4.5% 


13.5% 


0.1% 


6.4% 


100.0% 




Gen 


42 


748 


1,758 


2,129 


336 


246 


5,259 


% of Total 




0.8% 


14.2% 


33.4% 


40.5% 


6.4% 


4.7% 


100.0% 


District 27A 



















Gaston Dora 2 

% of Total 0.1% 

Gen 24 

% of Total 4.0% 



1,380 


109 


459 


2 


130 


2,082 


66.3% 


5.2% 


22.0% 


0.1% 


6.2% 


100.0% 


71 


208 


69 


177 


56 


605 


11.7% 


34.4% 


11.4% 


29.3% 


9.3% 


100.0% 



District 27B 



Cleveland 


Dom 


10 


506 


139 


223 


8 


36 


922 




Gen 


5 


53 


92 


28 


65 


17 


260 


Lincoln 


Dora 


7 


221 


46 


7b 


5 


9 


364 




Gen 


3 


19 


47 


18 


35 


9 


13L 


Dist Totals 


Dom 


17 


727 


185 


299 


13 


45 


1,286 


% of Total 




1.3% 


56 . 5% 


14.4% 


23.3% 


1.0% 


3.5% 


100.0% 




Gen 


8 


72 


139 


46 


100 


26 


391 


% of Total 




2.0% 


18.4% 


35.5% 


11.8% 


25.6% 


6.6% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


Dora 


4 


985 


142 


557 


44 


106 


1,838 


% of Total 




0.2% 


53.6% 


7.7% 


30.3% 


2.4% 


5.8% 


100.0% 




Gen 


25 


137 


311 


174 


333 


48 


1,028 


% of Total 




2.4% 


13.3% 


30.3% 


16.9% 


32.4% 


4.7% 


100.0% 


District 29 


















Henderson 


Dora 


7 


320 


89 


192 





128 


73b 




Gen 


4 


36 


103 


72 


in 


47 


292 


McDowell 


Dora 





2 


23 


244 


4 


21 


294 




Gen 


1 


2 


27 


19 


28 


13 


90 


Polk 


Dora 





3 


10 


59 


1 


13 


86 




Gen 





1 


14 


14 


12 


5 


46 


Rutherford 


Dora 





294 


32 


77 


4 


21 


428 




Gen 


9 


34 


35 


26 


)6 


1 


141 


Transylvania 


Dora 


1 


119 


16 


60 


1 


9 


206 




Ge n 


1 


27 


43 


17 


16 


6 


110 


Dist Totals 


Dora 


8 


738 


170 


632 


10 


192 


1,750 


X of Total 




0.5% 


42 . 2% 


9.7% 


36.1% 


0.6% 


11.0% 


100.0% 




Gen 


15 


100 


222 


148 


122 


72 


679 


% of Total 




2.2% 


14.7% 


32.7% 


21.8% 


18.0% 


10.6% 


100.0% 



*Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges, 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



all 



157 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 















Judge's Final 




















Order or 














Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 








Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 


30 


















Cherokee 




Dom 


1 


98 


16 


33 


11 


10 


169 






Gen 


1 


7 


14 


13 


11 


5 


51 


Clay 




Dom 


1 


7 


11 


9 


1 


4 


33 






Gen 


2 


« 


5 


3 


2 


3 


23 


Graham 




Dora 


1 


3 


16 


32 





2 


54 






Gen 








10 


8 





3 


21 


Haywood 




Dom 


3 


260 


33 


50 


9 


10 


365 






Gen 


1 


38 


77 


23 


50 


11 


200 


Jackson 




Dora 


5 


22 


20 


115 


4 


10 


176 






Gen 





6 


26 


22 


14 


6 


74 


Macon 




Dora 


1 


8 b 


13 


42 


1 


21 


164 






Gen 


1 


9 


29 


19 


33 


16 


107 


Swain 




Dora 


2 


25 


39 


49 





5 


120 






Gen 


4 


3 


16 


6 


4 


3 


36 


Dist Totals 


Dora 


14 


501 


148 


330 


26 


62 


1,081 


% of 


Total 




1.3% 


46.3% 


13.7% 


30 . 5% 


2.4% 


5.7% 


100.0% 






Gen 


9 


71 


177 


94 


114 


47 


512 


% of 


Total 




1.8% 


13.9% 


34.6% 


18.4% 


22.3% 


9.2% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


Dom 


190 


37,208 


4,956 


14,831 


592 


4,101 


61,878 


X of 


Total 




0.3% 


60.1% 


8.0% 


24.0% 


1.0% 


6.6% 


100.0% 






Gen 


532 


4,899 


13,496 


6,531 


12,788 


3,184 


41,430 


% of 


Total 




1.3% 


11.8% 


32.6% 


15.8% 


30.9% 


7.7% 


100.0% 



-Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to jud 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



all 



158 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 



<6 



5 


83 . 3% 


38 


73.1% 


33 


63.5% 


38 


61 . 3% 


13 


39.4% 


71 


62.3% 


23 


43.4% 



6-12 






0.0% 


3 


5.8% 


13 


25.0% 


14 


22.6% 


10 


30 . 3% 


22 


19.3% 


11 


20.8% 



.12 



1 


16.7% 


11 


21.2% 


6 


11.5% 


10 


16.1% 


10 


30.3% 


21 


18.4% 


19 


35.8% 



Total 


Mean 


Median 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Days) 


6 


165.2 


40.0 


52 


224.6 


108.0 


52 


175.0 


127.5 


62 


187.7 


133.5 


33 


338.5 


240.0 


114 


204.5 


111.0 


53 


316.3 


198.0 



221 



59.4% 



73 



19.6% 



78 



21.0% 



372 



227.6 



129.0 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 



48 


36.4% 


27 


20.5% 


57 


43.2% 


132 


380.8 


294.5 


16 


64 . 0% 


2 


8.0% 


7 


28.0% 


25 


291.8 


103.0 


42 


40.4% 


11 


10.6% 


51 


49.0% 


104 


812.0 


326.5 


5 


50.0% 


1 


10.0% 


4 


40.0% 


10 


537.4 


168.5 


21 


61.8% 


5 


14 . 7% 


8 


23.5% 


34 


224.6 


97.0 



132 



43.3% 



46 



15.1% 



127 



41.6% 



305 



508.3 



261.0 



District 3 




















Carteret 


167 


34 . 9% 


54 


11.3% 


258 


53 . 9% 


479 


553.8 


412.0 


Craven 


272 


39.1% 


96 


13.8% 


328 


47.1% 


696 


499.0 


322.0 


Pamlico 


10 


15.6% 


12 


18.8% 


42 


65.6% 


64 


567.7 


45.7.5 


Pitt 


180 


34.4% 


67 


12.8% 


276 


52.8% 


523 


539.4 


430.0 



District Totals 



629 



35.7% 



229 



13.0% 



904 



51.3% 



1,762 



528.4 



389.0 



District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 

District Totals 



73 


58 . 9% 


16 


12.9% 


35 


28.2% 


12 


25.0% 


10 


20.8% 


26 


54.2% 


419 


36.4% 


169 


14.7% 


562 


48 . 9% 


101 


60.8% 


31 


18.7% 


34 


20 . 5% 



605 



40.7% 



226 



15.2% 



657 



44.2% 



124 

48 

1,150 

166 

1,488 



381.1 
739.2 
573.5 
209.0 

522.1 



137.0 
480.5 
352.0 
112.5 

285.5 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



308 


41.3% 


120 


16.1% 


317 


42.6% 


78 


59 . 5% 


27 


20 . 6% 


26 


19.8% 



745 
131 



391.0 
231.7 



269.0 
139.0 



District Totals 



386 



44.1% 



147 



16.8% 



343 



39.2% 



876 



367.2 



247.0 



District 6 




















Bertie 


41 


69.5% 


14 


23.7% 


4 


6.8% 


59 


160.5 


115.0 


Halifax 


133 


73.1% 


32 


17.6% 


17 


9.3% 


182 


144.4 


87.5 


Hertford 


45 


67.2% 


19 


28.4% 


3 


4.5% 


67 


155.6 


142.0 


Northampton 


39 


73.6% 


8 


15.1% 


6 


11.3% 


53 


137.1 


89.0 



District Totals 



253 



71.5% 



73 



20.2% 



30 



8.3% 



361 



148.0 



104.0 



District 7 
Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wilson 



149 


66.8% 


41 


18.4% 


33 


14.8% 


223 


242.7 


102.0 


153 


74.3% 


37 


18.0% 


16 


7.8% 


206 


156.0 


66.5 


164 


49.2% 


64 


19.2% 


105 


31.5% 


333 


403.0 


199.0 



District Totals 



466 



61.2% 



142 



18.6% 



154 



20.2% 



762 



289.3 



109.5 



District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



31 


66.0% 


198 


69 . 0% 


310 


75.4% 



539 



72.3% 



7 


14.9% 


61 


21.3% 


74 


18.0% 



142 



19.1% 



9 


19.1% 


8 


9 . 3% 


7 


6.6% 



64 



8.6% 



47 
287 
411 

745 



178.5 
156.4 
125.6 

140.8 



107.0 
94.0 
82.0 

89.0 



159 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



6-i; 



12 



Total 
Pending 



Mean Median 

Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 



50 


55.6% 


67 


58.8% 


37 


69.8% 


81 


62.3% 


58 


65.9% 



26 


28 . 9% 


28 


24 . 6% 


10 


18 . 9% 


33 


25.4% 


23 


26.1% 



14 


15.6% 


19 


16.7% 


6 


11.3% 


16 


12.3% 


7 


8.0% 



293 



61.7% 



120 



25.3% 



62 



13.1% 



90 
114 

53 
130 



475 



235.2 
191.0 
158.3 
180.6 
164.8 

188.0 



144.0 
133.0 
94.0 
100.5 
123.0 

118.0 



District 10 




















Wake 


886 


47.2% 


403 


21.4% 


590 


31.4% 


1,879 


360.1 


209.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


126 


71.2% 


40 


22.6% 


11 


6.2% 


177 


130.7 


76.0 


Johnston 


189 


75.6% 


47 


18.8% 


14 


5.6% 


250 


123.8 


74.0 


Lee 


95 


72.5% 


27 


20.6% 


9 


6.9% 


131 


135.0 


97.0 



District Totals 410 

District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 

District Totals 1,07? 

District 13 



7 3.5% 



114 



20.4% 



34 



6.1% 



Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 



1,056 


46.1% 


447 


19.5% 


786 


34 . 3% 


22 


35.5% 


13 


21.0% 


27 


43 . 5% 



24 
L01 

125 



45.9% 



64 . 9% 
54.6% 
54.3% 



460 



7 
28 
52 



19.6% 



18.9% 
15.1% 
22.6% 



813 



6 
56 

53 



34.6% 



16.2% 
30.3% 
23.0% 



558 



2,289 
62 

2,351 



37 
185 
230 



128.6 



317.9 
575.6 

324.7 



209.1 
300.7 
223.9 



76.0 



222.0 
301.0 

223.0 



65.0 
144.0 
157.5 



District Totals 250 55.3% 

District 14 

Durham 437 43.7% 



174 



19.2% 



17.4% 



115 



388 



25.4% 



38.8% 



452 



999 



254.1 



333.5 



143.5 



247.0 



District 15A 
Alamance 



197 



90.4% 



16 



7.3% 



2.3% 



218 



70.2 



39.0 



District 15B 

Chatham 

Orange 



District Totals 
District 16 



56 
126 



L82 



44.8% 
61.8% 



55.3% 



24 
40 

64 



19.2% 
19.6% 

19.5% 



45 
38 



36 . 0% 
18.6% 

25.2% 



125 
204 

329 



297.8 
203.3 

239.2 



255.0 
117.5 

138.0 



Robeson 


190 


71.7% 


33 


12.5% 


42 


15.8% 


265 


171.8 


80.0 


Scotland 


74 


76.3% 


12 


12.4% 


11 


11.3% 


97 


170.7 


79.0 


District Totals 


264 


72.9% 


45 


12.4% 


53 


14.6% 


362 


171.5 


79.5 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


40 


58.0% 


15 


21.7% 


14 


20.3% 


69 


268.3 


150.0 


Rockingham 


175 


69 . 7% 


62 


24.7% 


14 


5.6% 


251 


142.4 


87.0 



District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 

District Totals 



215 



37 
101 

138 



67.2% 



63.8% 
66.0% 



65.4% 



77 



14 
20 



34 



24.1% 



24.1% 
13.1% 



16.1% 



28 



7 
32 



39 



8.8% 



12.1% 
20.9% 

18.5% 



320 



58 

153 



21 1 



169.5 



168.4 
233.2 



215.4 



102.0 



116.0 
103.0 



108.0 



160 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 







rvgc: 




■ ■£ !.»." !.. 






Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 18 
Guilford 


860 


52.8% 


396 


24.3% 


372 


22 . 9% 


1,628 


248.9 


160.0 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 


212 
182 


58.7% 

60.3% 


76 
79 


21.1% 
26.2% 


73 
41 


20.2% 
13.6% 


361 

302 


205.3 
181.1 


129.0 
116.0 



District Totals 
District 19B 



394 



59.4% 



155 



23.4% 



114 



17.2% 



663 



District Totals 406 39.8% 192 18.8% 423 41.4% 1,021 

District 21 

Forsyth 667 63.6% 179 17.1% 202 19.3% 1,048 



194.3 



360.2 



210.8 



125.0 



Montgomery 


51 


77.3% 


10 


15.2% 


5 


7.6% 


66 


124.0 


87.0 


Randolph 


144 


78.7% 


19 


10.4% 


20 


10.9% 


183 


133.3 


75.0 


District Totals 


195 


78.3% 


29 


11.6% 


25 


10.0% 


249 


130.9 


79.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


36 


49 . 3% 


15 


20.5% 


22 


30.1% 


73 


262.7 


209.0 


Moore 


97 


38.3% 


54 


21.3% 


102 


40.3% 


253 


400.8 


283.0 


Richmond 


96 


35.4% 


44 


16.2% 


131 


48.3% 


271 


380.9 


338.0 


Stanly 


64 


37 . 6% 


27 


15.9% 


79 


46.5% 


170 


381.4 


333.5 


Union 


113 


44 . 5% 


52 


20.5% 


89 


35.0% 


254 


311.5 


213.5 



270.0 



90.0 



District 22 



Alexander 




33 


56.9% 


12 


20.7% 


13 


22.4% 


58 


275.6 


160.5 


Davidson 




229 


70.9% 


55 


17.0% 


39 


12.1% 


323 


158.6 


97.0 


Davie 




26 


37.1% 


24 


34 . 3% 


20 


28.6% 


70 


264.4 


234.0 


Iredell 




157 


69.8% 


40 


17.8% 


28 


12.4% 


225 


150.6 


80.0 


District 


Totals 


445 


65.8% 


131 


19.4% 


100 


14.8% 


676 


176.9 


100.5 


District 23 























Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 



16 


88 


9% 


29 


74 


4% 


88 


81 


5% 


44 


80 


0% 



1 


5 


6% 


5 


12 


8% 


16 


14 


8% 


7 


12 


7% 



1 


5.6% 


5 


12.8% 


4 


3.7% 


4 


7.3% 



177 



80.5% 



29 



13.2% 



14 



6.4% 



18 
39 

108 
55 

220 



District Totals 514 51.7% 201 20.2% 279 28.1% 994 

District 26 

Mecklenburg 1,088 75.1% 341 23.5% 20 1.4% 1,449 



78.1 
153.6 

97.8 
136.6 

115.8 



308.2 



115.2 



45.5 
69.0 
48.0 
67.0 

55.0 



District 24 




















Avery 


27 


39.7% 


21 


30.9% 


20 


29.4% 


68 


280.1 


229.0 


Madison 


11 


45.8% 


1 


4.2% 


12 


50.0% 


24 


454.8 


359.0 


Mitchell 


19 


45 . 2% 


13 


31.0% 


10 


23.8% 


42 


279.4 


196.5 


Watauga 


79 


67.5% 


23 


19.7% 


15 


12.8% 


117 


179.7 


94.0 


Yancey 


16 


55.2% 


8 


27.6% 


5 


17.2% 


29 


234.9 


143.0 


District Totals 


152 


54.3% 


66 


23.6% 


62 


22.1% 


280 


248.4 


154.5 


District 25 




















Burke 


132 


51.2% 


45 


17.4% 


81 


31.4% 


258 


400.4 


159.5 


Caldwell 


14 3 


45.7% 


55 


17.6% 


115 


36.7% 


313 


362.0 


221.0 


Catawba 


239 


56.5% 


101 


23.9% 


83 


19.6% 


423 


212.2 


139.0 



163.0 



80.0 



161 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 



Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



6-12 



• 12 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 


27A 


Gaston 




District 


27B 



Buncombe 



458 



52.9% 



155 



17.9% 



253 



29.2% 



480 



70.7% 



145 



21.4% 



54 



8.0% 



866 



679 



259.2 



145.3 



151.5 



Cleveland 


169 


73.8% 


28 


12.2% 


32 


14.0% 


229 


160.1 


76.0 


Lincoln 


59 


80.8% 


11 


15.1% 


3 


4.1% 


73 


98.2 


58.0 


District Totals 


228 


75.5% 


39 


12.9% 


35 


11.6% 


302 


145.2 


73.0 


District 28 





















95.0 



District 29 



Henderson 


135 


47.2% 


53 


18.5% 


98 


34 . 3% 


286 


337.3 


194.5 


McDowell 


64 


71.1% 


15 


16.7% 


11 


12 . 2% 


90 


158.7 


80.0 


Polk 


10 


50 . 0% 


5 


25.0% 


5 


25.0% 


20 


294.2 


182.5 


Rutherford 


8 b 


40 . 2% 


51 


23.8% 


77 


36.0% 


214 


340.0 


274.0 


Transylvania 


61 


45.9% 


26 


19.5% 


46 


34.6% 


133 


321.3 


223.0 


District Totals 


356 


47.9% 


150 


20.2% 


237 


31.9% 


743 


312.4 


195.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


37 


57.8% 


11 


17.2% 


16 


25.0% 


64 


229.3 


133.5 


Clay 


6 


46.2% 


i 


7.7% 


6 


46 . 2% 


13 


341.9 


285.0 


Graham 


16 


66.7% 


4 


16.7% 


4 


16.7% 


24 


208.7 


123.0 


Haywood 


108 


39 . 9% 


45 


16.6% 


118 


43.5% 


271 


380.1 


290.0 


Jackson 


44 


59.5% 


13 


17.6% 


17 


23.0% 


74 


226.4 


123.5 


Macon 


41 


40.6% 


23 


22.8% 


37 


36.6% 


101 


449.7 


258.0 


Swain 


27 


38.6% 


L4 


20.0% 


29 


41.4% 


70 


453.4 


253.0 


District Totals 


279 


45.2% 


111 


18.0% 


227 


36 . 8% 


617 


358.3 


229.0 


State Totals 


14,285 


54 . 4% 


4,991 


19.0% 


6,984 


26.6% 


26,260 


290.0 


149.0 



162 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 
Total Mean Median 

<6 % 6-12 % >12 % Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 

District 1 

Camden 27 75.0% 4 11.1% 5 13.9% 36 140.2 61.0 

Chowan 111 82.8% 14 10.4% 9 6.7% 134 101.1 37.0 

Currituck 60 73.2% 14 17.1% 8 9.8% 82 126.9 74.5 

Dare 109 72.7% 26 17.3% 15 10.0% 150 147.3 67.0 

Gates 48 87.3% 5 9.1% 2 3.6% 55 91.2 54.0 

Pasquotank 240 78.4% 22 7.2% 44 14.4% 306 143.4 59.5 

Perquimans 58 85.3% 3 4.4% 7 10.3% 68 112.7 57.0 

District Totals 653 78.6% 88 10.6% 90 10.8% 831 129.6 58.0 

District 2 



Beaufort 


283 


79.9% 


23 


6.5% 


48 


13.6% 


354 


145.1 


46.0 


Hyde 


37 


74.0% 


4 


8.0% 


9 


18.0% 


50 


200.8 


67.5 


Martin 


276 


86.3% 


24 


7.5% 


20 


6.3% 


320 


100.2 


47.0 


Tyrrell 


20 


90.9% 


1 


4.5% 


1 


4.5% 


22 


100.8 


31.5 


Washington 


171 


87.7% 


18 


9.2% 


6 


3.1% 


195 


68.4 


0.0 


District Totals 


787 


83.6% 


70 


7.4% 


84 


8.9% 


941 


115.9 


42.0 


District 3 




















Carteret 


379 


83.1% 


46 


10.1% 


31 


6.8% 


456 


116.5 


60.5 


Craven 


707 


84.3% 


73 


8.7% 


59 


7.0% 


839 


115.3 


58.0 


Pamlico 


91 


83.5% 


8 


7.3% 


10 


9.2% 


109 


100.1 


39.0 


Pitt 


552 


87.8% 


38 


6.0% 


39 


6.2% 


629 


109.4 


50.0 


District Totals 


1,729 


85.0% 


165 


8.1% 


139 


6.8% 


2,033 


112.9 


55.0 


District 4 




















Duplin 


256 


85 . 9% 


25 


8.4% 


17 


5.7% 


298 


105.3 


49.5 


Jones 


66 


77.6% 


6 


7.1% 


13 


15.3% 


85 


168.3 


51.0 


Onslow 


1,070 


84.3% 


109 


8.6% 


91 


7.2% 


1,270 


123.5 


60.0 


Sampson 


440 


90.0% 


37 


7.6% 


12 


2.5% 


489 


79.9 


46.0 


District Totals 


1,832 


85.5% 


177 


8.3% 


133 


6.2% 


2,142 


112.8 


56.0 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


1,007 


79.7% 


89 


7.0% 


168 


13.3% 


1,264 


156.1 


56.0 


Pender 


187 


71.9% 


47 


18.1% 


26 


10.0% 


260 


147.4 


76.0 


District Totals 


1,194 


78.3% 


136 


8.9% 


194 


12.7% 


1,524 


154.6 


56.5 


District 6 





















Bertie 242 79.3% 47 15.4% 16 5.2% 305 100.1 55.0 

Halifax 543 76.1% 116 16.2% 55 7.7% 714 115.5 63.0 

Hertford 227 71.2% 65 20.4% 27 8.5% 319 139.6 77.0 

Northampton 209 86.0% 28 11.5% 6 2.5% 243 69.0 1.0 

District Totals 1,221 77.2% 256 16.2% 104 6.6% 1,581 110.2 59.0 

District 7 

Edgecombe 498 63.7% 43 5.5% 241 30.8% 782 395.0 76.0 



.5% 


241 


30.8% 


.7% 


172 


21.3% 


.9% 


129 


14.1% 



Nash 591 73.1% 46 5.7% 172 21.3% 809 253.1 61.0 

Wilson 733 80.0% 54 5.9% 129 14.1% 916 172.1 48.0 

District Totals 1,822 72.7% 143 5.7% 542 21.6% 2,507 267.7 56.0 

District 8 

Greene 104 91.2% 6 5.3% 4 3.5% 114 64.4 39.0 



104 


91.2% 


6 


5.3% 


638 


81.3% 


89 


11.3% 


,003 


79.6% 


202 


16.0% 



Lenoir 638 81.3% 89 11.3% 58 7.4% 785 117.8 54.0 

Wayne 1,003 79.6% 202 16.0% 55 4.4% 1,260 106.3 55.0 

District Totals 1,745 80.8% 297 13.8% 117 5.4% 2,159 108.3 54.0 



163 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



6-12 



• 12 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean Median 

Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 9 




















Franklin 


214 


87 . 0% 


23 


9.3% 


9 


3.7% 


246 


89.0 


42.0 


Granville 


185 


73.4% 


36 


14.3% 


31 


12.3% 


252 


137.7 


61.5 


Person 


219 


80.5% 


28 


10.3% 


25 


9.2% 


272 


111.8 


45.0 


Vance 


458 


85 . 6% 


45 


8.4% 


32 


6.0% 


535 


98.1 


41.0 


Warren 


L23 


75.0% 


12 


7.3% 


29 


17.7% 


164 


159.3 


54.0 



District Totals 1,199 
District 10 



Wake 


2 


,759 


District 11 






Harnett 




481 


Johnston 




672 


Lee 




314 


District Totals 


1 


,467 


District 12 






Cumberland 


2 


,808 


Hoke 




125 



81.6% 



51.5% 



82 . 6% 
82.1% 
81.6% 

82.1% 



75.2% 
88.7% 



144 



190 



84 

109 

42 

235 



414 



9.8% 



5.6% 



14.4% 
13.3% 
10.9% 

13.2% 



11.1% 
5.7% 



126 



437 



84 



514 



8.6% 



12.9% 



17 


2.9% 


38 


4.6% 


29 


7.5% 



4.7% 



1,469 



3,386 



582 
819 
385 

1,786 



112.8 



163.7 



86.2 

92.5 

100.4 

92.2 



45.0 



47.0 



47.0 
47.0 
46.0 

47.0 



3.8% 


3,736 


190.9 


70.0 


5.7% 


141 


85.1 


42.0 



District Totals 2,933 



75.7% 



422 



10.9% 



522 



13.5% 



3,877 



187.1 



69.0 



District 13 




















Bladen 


199 


94.8% 


6 


2.9% 


5 


2.4% 


210 


50.4 


26.5 


Brunswick 


301 


89 . 3% 


25 


7.4% 


11 


3.3% 


337 


79.4 


52.0 


Columbus 


511 


83 . 6% 


51 


8.3% 


49 


8.0% 


611 


100.1 


45.0 


District Totals 


1,011 


87.3% 


82 


7.1% 


65 


5.6% 


1,158 


85.1 


44.0 


District 14 




















Durham 


1,272 


82.0% 


112 


7.2% 


167 


10.8% 


1,551 


151.6 


54.0 



District 15A 
Alamance 



985 



91.3% 



71 



6.6% 



23 



2.1% 



1,079 



74.0 



46.0 



District 15B 

Chatham 

Orange 

District Totals 



198 
407 



605 



78.0% 
75.2% 

76.1% 



14 
40 



54 



5.5% 
7.4% 

6.8% 



42 

94 



136 



16.5% 
17.4% 

17.1% 



254 
541 

795 



172.0 
214.6 

201.0 



48.0 
54.0 



52.0 



District 16 




















Robeson 


938 


86.7% 


59 


5.2% 


92 


8.1% 


1,139 


95.9 


39.0 


Scotland 


289 


79.2% 


43 


11.8% 


33 


9.0% 


365 


112.0 


45.0 



District Totals 1,277 



84 . 9% 



102 



6.8% 



125 



8.3% 



1,504 



99.8 



40.0 



District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 

District Totals 



130 
719 

849 



128 
421 



549 



74.7% 
83.4% 

81.9% 



77.1% 

86.6% 



84.2% 



32 

102 

134 



19 
38 



57 



18.4% 
U . 8% 

12.9% 



11.4% 
7.8% 



8.7% 



12 

41 

53 



19 
27 



46 



6.9% 
4.8% 

5.1% 



11.4% 
5.6% 

7.1% 



174 
862 

1,036 



166 
486 



652 



121.7 
93.4 

98.2 



124.9 
94.2 

102.0 



37.0 

43.0 

42.0 



65.0 
49.0 

54.0 



164 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



<6 



Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



6-12 



• 12 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean Median 

Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 18 
Guilford 



2,891 



1.1% 



249 



7.6% 



142 



4.3% 



3,282 



91.8 



48.0 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 



337 
758 



District Totals 1,595 
District 19B 



81.7% 
88.4% 

84 . 8% 



54 
53 



107 



5.3% 
6.2% 

5.7% 



134 
46 

180 



13.1% 
5.4% 

9.6% 



1,025 
857 

1,882 



District Totals 1,803 
District 21 



.4% 



109 



5.2% 



176 



8.4% 



2,088 



123.8 
85.5 

106.4 



157.3 



48.0 
48.0 

48.0 



Montgomery 


124 


93.9% 


8 


6.1% 





0.0% 


132 


64.8 


47.0 


Randolph 


522 


77.1% 


85 


12.6% 


70 


10.3% 


677 


128.0 


51.0 


District Totals 


646 


79.9% 


93 


11.5% 


70 


8.7% 


809 


117.7 


50.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


209 


87.1% 


14 


5.8% 


17 


7.1% 


240 


90.3 


40.5 


Moore 


384 


90 . 6% 


30 


7.1% 


10 


2.4% 


424 


84.1 


57.0 


Richmond 


397 


81.0% 


16 


3.3% 


77 


15.7% 


490 


349.2 


48.0 


Stanly 


321 


91.5% 


16 


4.6% 


14 


4.0% 


351 


75.4 


41.0 


Union 


492 


84.4% 


33 


5.7% 


58 


9.9% 


583 


126.1 


46.0 



47.5 



Forsyth 


2,490 


89 . 2% 


190 


6.8% 


111 


4.0% 


2,791 


92.9 


56.0 


District 22 




















Alexander 


179 


85.6% 


17 


8.1% 


13 


6.2% 


209 


92.2 


43.0 


Davidson 


744 


88 . 2% 


71 


8.4% 


29 


3.4% 


844 


81.5 


45.0 


Davie 


125 


60 . 7% 


38 


18.4% 


43 


20.9% 


206 


221.9 


107.5 


Iredell 


540 


85.0% 


44 


6.9% 


51 


8.0% 


635 


98.9 


47.0 


District Totals 


1,588 


83.8% 


170 


9.0% 


136 


7.2% 


1,894 


103.8 


48.0 


District 23 





















Alleghany 




57 


85.1% 


8 


11.9% 


2 


3.0% 


b7 


86.9 


48.0 


Ashe 




148 


94 . 9% 


7 


4.5% 


1 


0.6% 


155 


56.9 


41.0 


Wilkes 




425 


89.1% 


37 


7.8% 


15 


3.1% 


477 


79.1 


44.0 


Yadkin 




187 


87.4% 


20 


9.3% 


7 


3.3% 


214 


75.7 


42.0 


District 


Totals 


817 


89.4% 


72 


7.9% 


25 


2.7% 


914 


75.1 


43.0 


District 24 






















Avery 




102 


77.9% 


7 


5.3% 


22 


16.8% 


131 


206.1 


71.0 


Madison 




25 


49.0% 


11 


21.6% 


15 


29.4% 


51 


361.9 


226.0 


Mitchell 




63 


82.9% 


5 


6.6% 


8 


10.5% 


76 


120.3 


57.0 


Watauga 




190 


76.3% 


36 


14.5% 


23 


9.2% 


249 


141.3 


74.0 


Yancey 




91 


77.8% 


18 


15.4% 


H 


6.8% 


117 


136.9 


57.0 


District 


Totals 


471 


75.5% 


77 


12.3% 


76 


12.2% 


624 


169.5 


70.0 


District 25 






















Burke 




479 


82.0% 


39 


6.7% 


66 


11.3% 


584 


131.4 


46.0 


Caldwell 




527 


80.0% 


35 


5.3% 


97 


14.7% 


659 


207.7 


47.0 


Catawba 




972 


81.0% 


85 


7.1% 


143 


11.9% 


1,200 


127.5 


46.0 


District 


Totals 


1,978 


31.0% 


159 


6.5% 


306 


12.5% 


2,443 


150.1 


46.0 


District 26 























Mecklenburg 



4,436 



86.9% 



378 



7.4% 



289 



5.7% 



5,103 



85.2 



48.0 



165 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


1,883 


90.4% 


99 


4.8% 


100 


4.8% 


2,082 


83.9 


42.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


642 


69.6% 


133 


14.4% 


147 


15.9% 


922 


173.5 


57.0 


Lincoln 


331 


90.9% 


28 


7.7% 


5 


1.4% 


364 


74.4 


44.0 


District Totals 


973 


75.7% 


161 


12.5% 


152 


11.8% 


1,286 


145.5 


50.0 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


1,465 


79.7% 


289 


15.7% 


84 


4.6% 


1,838 


106.3 


56.0 


District 29 




















Henderson 


399 


54.2% 


55 


7.5% 


282 


38.3% 


736 


393.6 


138.5 


McDowell 


2 28 


77.6% 


34 


11.6% 


32 


10.9% 


294 


130.2 


49.0 


Polk 


71 


82.6% 


7 


8.1% 


8 


9.3% 


86 


122.5 


43.0 


Rutherford 


361 


84 . 3% 


26 


6.1% 


41 


9.6% 


428 


126.3 


48.0 


Transylvania 


167 


81.1% 


12 


5.8% 


27 


13.1% 


206 


153.5 


50.0 


District Totals 


1,226 


70.1% 


134 


7.7% 


390 


22.3% 


1,750 


242.4 


61.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


128 


7 5.7% 


26 


15.4% 


15 


8.9% 


169 


138.6 


64.0 


Clay 


21 


63.6% 


6 


18.2% 


6 


18.2% 


33 


195.9 


123.0 


Graham 


39 


72.2% 


10 


18.5% 


5 


9.3% 


54 


155.1 


104.5 


Haywood 


283 


77.5% 


44 


12.1% 


38 


10.4% 


365 


144.5 


64.0 


Jackson 


138 


78.4% 


26 


14.8% 


12 


6.8% 


176 


121.8 


63.0 


Macon 


129 


78.7% 


15 


9.1% 


20 


12.2% 


164 


148.0 


67.5 


Swain 


63 


52.5% 


27 


22.5% 


30 


25.0% 


120 


290.2 


152.5 


District Totals 


801 


74.1% 


154 


14.2% 


126 


U.7% 


1,081 


158.7 


71.0 


State Totals 


50,952 


82 . 3% 


5,376 


8.7% 


5,550 


9.0% 


61,878 


129.5 


51.0 



166 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



<9 



9-18 



.18 



District 1 














Camden 


6 


60.0% 


3 


30.0% 


1 


10.0% 


Chowan 


19 


35.8% 


12 


22.6% 


22 


41.5% 


Currituck 


27 


71.1% 


9 


23.7% 


2 


5.3% 


Dare 


80 


69.6% 


20 


17.4% 


15 


13.0% 


Gates 


9 


69.2% 


2 


15.4% 


2 


15.4% 


Pasquotank 


52 


52.5% 


35 


35.4% 


12 


12.1% 


Perquimans 


34 


79.1% 


5 


11.6% 


4 


9.3% 


District Totals 


227 


61.2% 


86 


23.2% 


58 


15.6% 


District 2 














Beaufort 


63 


48.5% 


33 


25.4% 


34 


26.2% 


Hyde 


12 


57.1% 


1 


4.8% 


8 


38.1% 


Martin 


25 


36.8% 


8 


11.8% 


35 


51.5% 


Tyrrell 


4 


66.7% 


1 


16.7% 


1 


16.7% 


Washington 


22 


55.0% 


13 


32.5% 


5 


12.5% 



Total 


Mean 


Median 


'ending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Days) 


10 


229.9 


210.0 


53 


504.5 


380.0 


38 


218.8 


144.5 


115 


229.9 


153.0 


13 


235.0 


166.0 


99 


257.3 


248.0 


43 


164.5 


9.0 



371 



130 

21 

68 

6 

40 



267.9 



381.5 
457.3 
847.9 
222.5 
269.9 



185.0 



312.0 
221.0 
672.0 
108.5 
188.5 



District Totals 



126 



47.5% 



56 



21.1% 



83 



31.3% 



265 



486.7 



321.0 



District 3 



Carteret 


92 


75.4% 


19 


15.6% 


11 


9.0% 


122 


202.9 


129.5 


Craven 


255 


75.7% 


48 


14.2% 


34 


10.1% 


337 


211.8 


107.0 


Pamlico 


8 


53.3% 


3 


20.0% 


4 


26.7% 


15 


467.8 


243.0 


Pitt 


200 


87 . 3% 


22 


9.6% 


7 


3.1% 


229 


138.8 


82.0 


District Totals 


555 


78.9% 


92 


13.1% 


56 


8.0% 


703 


191.9 


104.0 


District 4 




















Duplin 


79 


73.8% 


12 


11.2% 


16 


15.0% 


107 


262.4 


80.0 


Jones 


11 


50 . 0% 


3 


13.6% 


8 


36 . 4% 


22 


636.0 


350.5 


Onslow 


306 


51.6% 


129 


21.8% 


158 


26 . 6% 


593 


357.2 


254.0 


Sampson 


60 


64 . 5% 


18 


19.4% 


15 


16.1% 


93 


270.8 


157.0 


District Totals 


456 


56.0% 


162 


19.9% 


197 


24.2% 


815 


342.4 


195.0 


District 5 




















New Hanover 


651 


57.6% 


231 


20.4% 


248 


21.9% 


1,130 


330.6 


200.5 


Pender 


37 


33.3% 


41 


36.9% 


33 


29 . 7% 


111 


478.0 


311.0 


District Totals 


688 


55.4% 


272 


21.9% 


281 


22.6% 


1,241 


343.8 


215.0 


District 6 




















Bertie 


25 


96.2% 


1 


3.8% 





0.0% 


26 


124.7 


105.5 


Halifax 


77 


75.5% 


22 


21.6% 


3 


2.9% 


102 


165.1 


112.5 


Hertford 


74 


92.5% 


4 


5.0% 


2 


2.5% 


80 


117.5 


63.5 


Northampton 


16 


84.2% 


2 


10.5% 


1 


5.3% 


19 


166.6 


89.0 


District Totals 


192 


84.6% 


29 


12.8% 


6 


2.6% 


227 


143.8 


89.0 


District 7 





















Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



100 
170 
152 



63.3% 
63.4% 
56 . 5% 



22 
44 
40 



13.9% 
16.4% 
14.9% 



36 
54 
77 



22.8% 
20.1% 
28.6% 



158 
268 
269 



406.4 
367.7 
506.2 



165.0 
142.0 
216.0 



District Totals 



422 



60.7% 



106 



15.3% 



167 



24 . 0% 



695 



430.1 



179.0 



District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



9 


69.2% 


4 


30 . 8% 





0.0% 


197 


81.4% 


37 


15.3% 


8 


3.3% 


306 


80.5% 


56 


14.7% 


18 


4.7% 


512 


80 . 6% 


97 


15.3% 


26 


4.1% 



13 

242 
380 

635 



170.7 
159.1 
181.0 

172.5 



86.0 

97.0 

135.5 

118.0 



167 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



% 



9-18 



% 



18 



31 


50.8% 


12 


19.7% 


18 


29.5% 


62 


79.5% 


12 


15.4% 


4 


5.1% 


41 


64.1% 


11 


17.2% 


12 


18.8% 


82 


70.7% 


21 


18.1% 


13 


11.2% 


18 


62.1% 


9 


31.0% 


2 


6.9% 



Total 


Mean 


Median 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Days) 


61 


430.8 


269.0 


78 


202.4 


135.5 


64 


272.8 


146.0 


116 


252.1 


147.5 


29 


250.9 


181.0 



District Totals 



234 



67.2% 



65 



18.7% 



49 



14.1% 



348 



276.0 



156.0 



District 10 

Wake 



1,431 



75.3% 



323 



17.0% 



146 



7.7% 



1,900 



206.9 



123.0 



District 11 



Harnett 


166 


92 . 2% 


13 


7.2% 


1 


0.6% 


180 


110.5 


92.0 


Johnston 


210 


88 . 6% 


17 


7.2% 


10 


4.2% 


237 


155.4 


97.0 


Lee 


173 


85.6% 


22 


10.9% 


7 


3.5% 


202 


149.8 


87.0 


District Totals 


549 


88.7% 


52 


8.4% 


18 


2.9% 


619 


140.5 


94.0 


District 12 




















Cumberland 


417 


50.0% 


204 


24.5% 


213 


25.5% 


834 


358.8 


272.5 


Hoke 


30 


61.2% 


9 


18.4% 


10 


20.4% 


49 


331.3 


103.0 



District Totals 



447 



50.6% 



213 



24.1% 



223 



25.3% 



883 



357.2 



261.0 



District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 



92 


60.5% 


36 


23.7% 


24 


15.8% 


238 


52 . 2% 


143 


31.4% 


75 


16.4% 


189 


56.6% 


116 


34.7% 


29 


8.7% 



152 
456 
334 



274.8 
339.8 
256.2 



192.0 
247.5 
207.5 



District Totals 



519 



55.1% 



295 



31.3% 



128 



13.6% 



942 



299.7 



226.0 



District 


14 


Durham 




District 


15A 



Alamance 



588 



247 



48.9% 



90.5% 



372 



22 



30 . 9% 



8.1% 



242 



20.1% 



1.5% 



1,202 



273 



355.7 



117.2 



284.5 



74.0 



District 15B 



Chatham 


32 


41.6% 


23 


29.9% 


22 


28.6% 


77 


392.1 


340.0 


Orange 


202 


74.3% 


44 


16.2% 


26 


9.6% 


272 


214.8 


122.5 


District Totals 


234 


67.0% 


67 


19.2% 


48 


13.8% 


349 


253.9 


136.0 


District 16 





















Robeson 
Scotland 



318 
60 



68.4% 
72.3% 



74 



15.9% 


73 


15.7% 


465 


268.4 


130.0 


9.6% 


15 


18.1% 


83 


283.9 


158.0 



District Totals 
District 17A 



378 



69.0% 



82 



15.0% 



16.1% 



548 



270.7 



133.5 



Caswell 


30 


78.9% 


8 


21.1% 





0.0% 


38 


176.4 


212.0 


Rockingham 


147 


85.0% 


21 


12.1% 


5 


2.9% 


173 


151.7 


103.0 


District Totals 


177 


83.9% 


29 


13.7% 


5 


2.4% 


211 


156.1 


118.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


37 


64.9% 


13 


22.8% 


7 


12.3% 


57 


269.6 


132.0 


Surry 


120 


73.2% 


26 


15.9% 


18 


11.0% 


164 


222.2 


117.5 


District Totals 


157 


71.0% 


39 


17.6% 


25 


11.3% 


221 


234.4 


123.0 



168 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 







™B" 




B 






Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 18 




















Guilford 


1,618 


68.6% 


528 


22.4% 


213 


9.0% 


2,359 


221.0 


144.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


213 


72.2% 


66 


22.4% 


16 


5.4% 


295 


205.4 


130.0 


Rowan 


238 


63 . 5% 


119 


31.7% 


18 


4.8% 


375 


257.4 


165.0 



District Totals 
District 19B 



451 



67 . 3% 



185 



27.6% 



34 



5.1% 



Montgomery 


76 


72.4% 


12 


11.4% 


17 


16.2% 


Randolph 


82 


72.6% 


19 


16.8% 


12 


10.6% 


District Totals 


158 


72.5% 


31 


14.2% 


29 


13.3% 


District 20 















Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 



42 
178 
121 

96 
176 



60.0% 
44.3% 
43.1% 
38 . 6% 
57.0% 



21 

102 
119 

36 
68 



30.0% 
25.4% 
42.3% 
14.5% 
22.0% 



7 

122 

41 

117 

65 



10.0% 
30.3% 
14.6% 
47.0% 

21.0% 



670 



105 
113 

218 



70 
402 
281 
249 
309 



234.5 



231.2 
221.5 

226.2 



290.1 
440.5 
335.3 
633.1 
308.9 



157.0 



87.0 
107.0 

99.0 



221.5 
337.0 
304.0 
459.0 
240.0 



District Totals 613 46.8% 346 26.4% 352 26.8% 1,311 415.5 296.0 

District 21 

Forsyth 902 65.3% 266 19.2% 214 15.5% 1,382 241.6 129.0 



District 22 



Alexander 


16 


66.7% 


7 


29.2% 


1 


4.2% 


Davidson 


176 


83.4% 


24 


11.4% 


11 


5.2% 


Davie 


50 


63.3% 


24 


30 . 4% 


5 


6.3% 


Iredell 


194 


76.7% 


44 


17.4% 


15 


5.9% 


District Totals 


436 


76.9% 


99 


17.5% 


32 


5.6% 


District 23 














Alleghany 


40 


85.1% 


5 


10.6% 


2 


4.3% 


Ashe 


22 


57.9% 


8 


21.1% 


8 


21.1% 


Wilkes 


177 


79.4% 


33 


14.8% 


13 


5.8% 


Yadkin 


42 


63.6% 


10 


15.2% 


14 


21.2% 


District Totals 


281 


75.1% 


56 


15.0% 


37 


9.9% 


District 24 














Avery 


79 


83.2% 


6 


6.3% 


10 


10.5% 


Madison 


26 


70.3% 


7 


18.9% 


4 


10.8% 


Mitchell 


34 


81.0% 


6 


14.3% 


2 


4.8% 


Watauga 


108 


75.0% 


27 


18.8% 


9 


6.3% 


Yancey 


9 


56.3% 


4 


25.0% 


3 


18.8% 


District Totals 


256 


76.6% 


50 


15.0% 


28 


8.4% 


District 25 














Burke 


96 


52.2% 


42 


22.8% 


46 


25.0% 


Caldwell 


139 


81,3% 


22 


12.9% 


10 


5.8% 


Catawba 


284 


72.8% 


85 


21.8% 


21 


5.4% 


District Totals 


519 


69.7% 


149 


20.0% 


77 


10.3% 


District 26 














Mecklenburg 


2,294 


70.0% 


628 


19.2% 


353 


10.8% 



24 
211 

79 
253 

567 



47 

38 

223 

66 

374 



95 
37 

42 

144 

16 

334 



184 
171 
390 

745 



3,275 



238.4 
162.0 
220.4 
198.6 

189.7 



178.0 
269.8 
158.7 
411.8 

217.1 



173.1 
223.4 
169.6 

210.3 
287.5 

199.7 



452.5 
168.1 
207.1 

258.8 



220.3 



161.5 
110.0 
185.0 
139.0 

130.0 



151.0 
171.0 
102.0 
161.5 

115.5 



61.0 
136.0 
111.0 
180.0 
185.5 

119.0 



254.5 

76.0 

159.0 

139.0 



145.0 



169 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


237 


67.9% 


81 


23.2% 


31 


8.9% 


349 


227.1 


143.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


117 


95.9% 


5 


4.1% 





0.0% 


122 


92.5 


67.5 


Lincoln 


58 


93.5% 


2 


3.2% 


2 


3.2% 


62 


128.3 


78.0 


District Totals 


175 


95.1% 


7 


3.8% 


2 


1.1% 


184 


104.6 


70.5 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


564 


90.5% 


55 


8.8% 


4 


0.6% 


623 


122.2 


96.0 


District 29 




















Henderson 


132 


52 . 8% 


63 


25.2% 


55 


22.0% 


250 


336.3 


230.5 


McDowell 


60 


72.3% 


14 


16.9% 


9 


10.8% 


83 


245.4 


202.0 


Polk 


L5 


57.7% 


8 


30.8% 


3 


11.5% 


26 


272.3 


250.0 


Rutherford 


67 


61 . 5% 


30 


27.5% 


12 


11.0% 


109 


239.8 


153.0 


Transylvania 


55 


40.7% 


45 


33.3% 


35 


25.9% 


135 


401.5 


349.0 


District Totals 


329 


54.6% 


160 


26.5% 


114 


18.9% 


603 


318.2 


247.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


20 


71.4% 


8 


28.6% 





0.0% 


28 


170.4 


150.0 


Clay 


13 


81.3% 


3 


18.8% 





0.0% 


16 


96.4 


40.0 


Graham 


7 


70.0% 


3 


30 . 0% 





0.0% 


10 


186.0 


161.5 


Haywood 


68 


49.6% 


33 


24.1% 


36 


26 . 3% 


137 


390.5 


275.0 


Jackson 


47 


75.8% 


8 


12.9% 


7 


11.3% 


62 


236.1 


141.0 


Macon 


53 


55.2% 


22 


22.9% 


21 


21.9% 


96 


475.5 


232.0 


Swain 


17 


39 . 5% 


10 


23.3% 


16 


37.2% 


43 


513.8 


362.0 


District Totals 


225 


57.4% 


87 


22.2% 


80 


20.4% 


392 


367.5 


203.5 


State Totals 


17,197 


66 . 6% 


5,187 


20.1% 


3,450 


13.4% 


25,834 


261.4 


152.0 



170 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


3 


60.0% 


2 


40.0% 





0.0% 


5 


219.2 


152.0 


Chowan 


41 


57.7% 


12 


16.9% 


18 


25.4% 


71 


331.7 


221.0 


Currituck 


32 


74.4% 


10 


23.3% 


1 


2.3% 


43 


190.5 


116.0 


Dare 


82 


71.3% 


20 


17.4% 


13 


11.3% 


115 


212.4 


119.0 


Gates 


19 


70.4% 


3 


11.1% 


5 


18.5% 


27 


237.9 


83.0 


Pasquotank 


93 


69 . 9% 


14 


10.5% 


26 


19.5% 


133 


253.9 


92.0 


Perquimans 


14 


58.3% 


9 


37.5% 


1 


4.2% 


24 


233.6 


222.0 



District Totals 



284 



67.9% 



70 



16.7% 



64 



15.3% 



418 



246.6 



136.5 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



99 


68.3% 


18 


12.4% 


28 


19.3% 


4 


25.0% 


7 


43.8% 


5 


31.3% 


48 


65.8% 


4 


5.5% 


21 


28.8% 


7 


70.0% 





0.0% 


3 


30 . 0% 


37 


66.1% 


12 


21.4% 


7 


12.5% 



145 

16 
73 
10 
56 



257.2 
487.8 
621.3 
288.9 
280.7 



119.0 

345.5 

87.0 

77.5 

184.5 



District Totals 



195 



65.0% 



41 



13.7% 



64 



21.3% 



300 



363.6 



140.0 



District 3 



Carteret 






268 


85.4% 


34 


10.8% 


12 


3.8% 


314 


145.6 


83.0 


Craven 






663 


86.0% 


75 


9.7% 


33 


4.3% 


771 


156.4 


89.0 


Pamlico 






25 


64.1% 


11 


28.2% 


3 


7.7% 


39 


248.7 


210.0 


Pitt 






438 


88.8% 


48 


9.7% 


7 


1.4% 


493 


135.6 


100.0 


District 


Totals 


1,394 


86 . 2% 


168 


10.4% 


55 


3.4% 


1,617 


150.2 


97.0 


District 


4 























Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



101 


61.6% 


40 


24.4% 


23 


14.0% 


11 


61.1% 


3 


16.7% 


4 


22 . 2% 


298 


79.9% 


43 


11.5% 


32 


8.6% 


148 


76.3% 


35 


18.0% 


11 


5.7% 



164 

18 

373 

194 



308.6 
579.2 
200.1 
188.4 



138.5 

233.5 

99.0 

117.0 



District Totals 



558 



74 . 5% 



121 



16.2% 



70 



9.3% 



749 



230.0 



114.0 



District 5 



New Hanover 


1,250 


58.7% 


419 


19.7% 


461 


21.6% 


2,130 


315.3 


165.0 


Pender 


83 


59.7% 


33 


23.7% 


23 


16 . 5% 


139 


289.0 


150.0 


District Totals 


1,333 


58.7% 


452 


19.9% 


484 


21.3% 


2,269 


313.7 


164.0 


District 6 





















Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 



39 
137 
154 

25 



66.1% 
78.7% 
90.1% 
69.4% 



12 

27 

11 

6 



20.3% 

15.5% 

6.4% 

16.7% 



10 
6 
5 



13.6% 
5.7% 
3.5% 

13.9% 



59 
174 
171 

36 



220.1 
161.1 
135.4 
262.7 



84.0 
74.0 
83.0 
96.5 



District Totals 



355 



80.7% 



56 



12.7% 



29 



6.6% 



440 



167.3 



82.0 



District 7 
Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wilson 



182 


43.2% 


50 


11.9% 


189 


44.9% 


267 


51.0% 


34 


6.5% 


223 


42.6% 


263 


50.2% 


42 


8.0% 


219 


41.8% 



421 
524 
524 



645.8 
561.9 
601.8 



437.0 
239.5 
269.5 



District Totals 



712 



48.5% 



126 



8.6% 



631 



43.0% 



1,469 



600.2 



344.0 



District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



18 


94.7% 


1 


5.3% 





0.0% 


386 


84.3% 


60 


13.1% 


12 


2.6% 


493 


64.4% 


228 


29.8% 


44 


5.8% 



19 
458 
765 



92.1 
141.5 
206.6 



63.0 

70.5 

157.0 



District Totals 



897 



72.2% 



289 



23.3% 



56 



4.5% 



1,242 



180.9 



114.0 



171 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 






<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 9 




















Franklin 


67 


64.4% 


20 


19.2% 


17 


16.3% 


104 


308.9 


212.0 


Granville 


104 


73.8% 


2b 


18.4% 


11 


7.8% 


141 


217.1 


163.0 


Person 


106 


71.1% 


30 


20.1% 


13 


8.7% 


149 


202.9 


96.0 


Vance 


96 


71.1% 


25 


18.5% 


14 


10.4% 


135 


275.6 


133.0 


Warren 


35 


72.9% 


10 


20.8% 


3 


6.3% 


48 


236.7 


218.0 



District Totals 408 

District 10 



Wake 



2,921 



70.7% 



79.0% 



111 



630 



19.2% 



17.0% 



58 



147 



10.1% 



4.0% 



577 



3,698 



245.3 



175.3 



163.0 



100.0 



District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 



290 
551 
385 



District Totals 1,226 
District 12 



Cumberland 
Hoke 



745 
68 



76.3% 
79.4% 
68.0% 

74.8% 



68 . 0% 
84.0% 



82 
135 
167 

384 



128 
9 



21.6% 
19.5% 
29.5% 

23.4% 



11.7% 
11.1% 



14 
30 



223 

4 



2.1% 
1.2% 
2.5% 

1.8% 



20.3% 
4.9% 



380 
694 
566 

1,640 



1,096 
81 



171.4 
152.6 
180.2 

166.5 



296.6 
141.6 



140.5 

85.5 

102.0 

104.0 



119.0 
66.0 



District Totals 



813 



69.1% 



137 



11.6% 



227 



19.3% 



1,177 



286.0 



106.0 



District 13 




















Bladen 


272 


95.8% 


12 


4.2% 





0.0% 


284 


71.9 


49.0 


Brunswick 


350 


86 . 2% 


47 


11.6% 


9 


2.2% 


406 


137.2 


77.0 


Columbus 


230 


71.9% 


78 


24.4% 


12 


3.8% 


320 


189.5 


121.0 


District Totals 


852 


84.4% 


137 


13.6% 


21 


2.1% 


1,010 


135.4 


69.0 


District 14 




















Durham 


766 


69 . 4% 


112 


10.1% 


226 


20 . 5% 


1,104 


278.6 


121.5 


District 15A 




















Alamance 


526 


91.5% 


44 


7.7% 


5 


0.9% 


575 


115.7 


83.0 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


74 


59.7% 


13 


10.5% 


37 


29.8% 


124 


335.3 


152.5 


Orange 


321 


58.7% 


71 


13.0% 


155 


28.3% 


547 


387.9 


181.0 


District Totals 


395 


58.9% 


84 


12.5% 


192 


28.6% 


671 


378.2 


176.0 


District 16 




















Robeson 


723 


72.4% 


174 


17.4% 


101 


10.1% 


998 


227.4 


119.0 


Scotland 


126 


79.7% 


23 


14.6% 


9 


5.7% 


158 


176.6 


77.0 



District Totals 
District 17A 



849 



73.4% 



197 



17.0% 



110 



9.5% 



1,156 



District Totals 



334 



72.6% 



85 



18.5% 



41 



8.9% 



460 



220.5 



195.2 



112.5 



Caswell 


34 


73.9% 


7 


15.2% 


5 


10.9% 


46 


234.2 


155.0 


Rockingham 


283 


83.2% 


51 


15.0% 


6 


1.8% 


340 


137.4 


69.0 


District Totals 


317 


82.1% 


58 


15.0% 


11 


2.8% 


386 


148.9 


76.5 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


46 


59.0% 


25 


32.1% 


7 


9.0% 


78 


237.3 


142.0 


Surry 


288 


75.4% 


60 


15.7% 


34 


8.9% 


382 


186.5 


78.0 



1.5 



172 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 



Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



9-18 



>18 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 
Age (Days) 



Median 
Age (Days) 



District 18 




















Guilford 


2,721 


81.3% 


528 


15.8% 


98 


2.9% 


3,347 


148.2 


84.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


229 


50.0% 


185 


40.4% 


44 


9.6% 


458 


292.8 


274.5 


Rowan 


245 


72.9% 


81 


24.1% 


10 


3.0% 


336 


192.3 


115.0 



District Totals 



474 



59.7% 



266 



33.5% 



54 



6.8% 



794 



250.3 



172.0 



District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 



District Totals 



110 


69.6% 


41 


25.9% 


7 


4.4% 


211 


77.9% 


39 


14.4% 


21 


7.7% 



321 



74.8% 



80 



18.6% 



28 



6.5% 



158 
271 

429 



193.2 
168.1 

177.4 



127.0 
69.0 

85.0 



District 20 



Anson 


52 


65.0% 


19 


23.8% 


9 


11.3% 


80 


246.0 


143.0 


Moore 


182 


77.8% 


35 


15.0% 


17 


7.3% 


234 


193.6 


107.5 


Richmond 


97 


55.7% 


25 


14.4% 


52 


29 . 9% 


174 


384.5 


198.5 


Stanly 


284 


92.8% 


8 


2.6% 


14 


4.6% 


306 


132.4 


74.0 


Union 


226 


61.9% 


62 


17.0% 


77 


21.1% 


365 


287.9 


144.0 


District Totals 


841 


72.6% 


149 


12.9% 


169 


14.6% 


1,159 


239.4 


103.0 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


1,834 


79.2% 


378 


16.3% 


104 


4.5% 


2,316 


176.6 


111.5 


District 22 





















Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 



45 


86 . 5% 


5 


9.6% 


2 


3.8% 


281 


78.3% 


57 


15.9% 


2L 


5.8% 


78 


53.8% 


32 


22.1% 


35 


24.1% 


376 


69 . 6% 


128 


23.7% 


36 


6.7% 



52 
359 
145 
540 



132.7 
175.6 
356.3 

208.1 



65.5 
103.0 
242.0 

94.0 



District Totals 



780 



71.2% 



222 



20.3% 



94 



8.6% 



1,096 



213.5 



101.0 



District 23 



Alleghany 


5U 


79.4% 


13 


20.6% 





0.0% 


63 


136.5 


102.0 


Ashe 


49 


81.7% 


6 


10.0% 


5 


8.3% 


60 


162.4 


97.5 


Wilkes 


501 


87.3% 


64 


11.1% 


9 


1.6% 


574 


121.9 


65.0 


Yadkin 


88 


77.9% 


19 


16.8% 


6 


5.3% 


113 


171.2 


105.0 


District Totals 


688 


84.9% 


102 


12.6% 


20 


2.5% 


810 


132.9 


74.0 


District 24 




















Avery 


116 


90.6% 


8 


6.3% 


4 


3.1% 


128 


151.8 


106.5 


Madison 


74 


83.1% 


11 


12.4% 


4 


4.5% 


89 


134.9 


55.0 


Mitchell 


43 


86.0% 


7 


14.0% 





0.0% 


50 


117.0 


79.5 


Watauga 


217 


90.4% 


21 


8.8% 


2 


0.8% 


240 


126.2 


93.5 


Yancey 


12 


48.0% 


6 


24.0% 


7 


28 . 0% 


25 


366.1 


309.0 


District Totals 


462 


86.8% 


53 


10.0% 


17 


3.2% 


532 


144.2 


90.0 


District 25 





















Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 



242 
292 
537 



81.8% 
72.5% 
65.8% 



42 

76 

194 



14.2% 
18.9% 
23.8% 



12 
35 
85 



4.1% 

8.7% 

10.4% 



296 
403 
816 



140.0 
242.5 
229.4 



56.0 
158.0 
126.0 



District Totals 1,071 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 



3,901 



70.7% 



74.2% 



312 



858 



20.6% 



16.3% 



132 



500 



, 7% 



9.5% 



1,515 
5,259 



215.6 



196.9 



115.0 



104.0 



173 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985 



Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



9-18 



>18 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 
Age (Days) 



Median 

Age (Days) 



District 


27A 


Gaston 




District 


27B 



452 



74.7% 



106 



17.5% 



47 



7.8% 



605 



208.0 



141.0 



Cleveland 


195 


75.0% 


48 


18.5% 


17 


6.5% 


260 


195.7 


137.5 


Lincoln 


125 


95.4% 


6 


4.6% 





0.0% 


131 


112.8 


91.0 



District Totals 



320 



81.8% 



54 



13.8% 



17 



4.3% 



391 



167.9 



117.0 



District 


28 


Buncombe 




District 


29 



842 



81.9% 



167 



16.2% 



19 



1.8% 



1,028 



170.2 



137.0 



Henderson 


132 


45.2% 


49 


16.8% 


111 


38.0% 


292 


470.6 


313.5 


McDowell 


61 


67.8% 


19 


21.1% 


10 


11.1% 


90 


264.3 


122.0 


Polk 


38 


82 . 6% 


5 


10.9% 


3 


6.5% 


46 


161.0 


104.5 


Rutherford 


9U 


63.8% 


18 


12.8% 


33 


23.4% 


141 


281.7 


142.0 


Transylvania 


80 


72.7% 


22 


20 . 0% 


8 


7.3% 


110 


204.5 


93.0 


District Totals 


401 


59.1% 


113 


16.6% 


165 


24 . 3% 


679 


340.0 


171.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


48 


94.1% 


2 


3.9% 


1 


2.0% 


51 


102.4 


73.0 


Clay 


23 


100.0% 





0.0% 





0.0% 


23 


71.0 


50.0 


Graham 


13 


71.4% 


4 


19.0% 


2 


9.5% 


21 


219.7 


181.0 


Haywood 


96 


48.0% 


37 


18.5% 


67 


33.5% 


200 


375.0 


309.5 


Jackson 


r )l 


68.9% 


16 


21.6% 


7 


9.5% 


74 


220.3 


162.0 


Macon 


75 


70.1% 


18 


16.8% 


14 


13.1% 


107 


263.1 


139.0 


Swain 


9 


25.0% 


1 1 


30.6% 


16 


44.4% 


36 


667.6 


452.5 


District Totals 


317 


61.9% 


88 


17.2% 


107 


20.9% 


512 


302.7 


172.0 


State Totals 


30,560 


73.8% 


6,778 


16.4% 


4,092 


9.9% 


41,430 


219.1 


110.0 



174 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

Jul} 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Filings 



Dispositions 



Filings 



Dispositions 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 



District 9 



District Totals 



District 5 



90 
871 
297 
431 
262 
854 
345 

3,150 



1,242 
128 
885 
138 
601 

2,994 



District 


3 




Carteret 




1,762 


Craven 




2,250 


Pamlico 




265 


Pitt 




2,856 


District Totals 


7,133 


District 


4 




Duplin 




1,371 


Jones 




160 


Onslow 




2,877 


Sampson 




1,432 



5,840 



New Hanovei 




3 


815 


Pender 






480 


District 


Totals 


4 


295 


District 6 








Bertie 






782 


Halifax 




1 


787 


Hertford 






652 


Northamptor 






746 


District 


Totals 


3 


967 


District 7 








Edgecombe 




5 


319 


Nash 




4 


350 


Wilson 




3 


187 


District 


Totals 


12 


856 


District 8 








Greene 






367 


Lenoir 




2 


629 


Wayne 




2 


633 



District Totals 



5,629 



100 
874 
269 
415 
286 
876 
330 

3,150 



1,308 
127 
837 
136 
621 

3,029 



1,752 

2,179 

255 

2,807 

6,993 



1,413 

161 

2,682 

1,417 

5,673 



3,636 

384 

4,020 



801 

1,725 

644 

748 

3,918 



5,229 
4,405 
3,223 

12,857 



368 
2,605 
2,634 

5,607 



Franklin 




955 


Granville 


1 


420 


Person 




796 


Vance 


2 


079 


Warren 




574 


District Totals 


5 


,824 


District 10 






Wake 


10 


,347 


District 11 







Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 



District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 



1,271 
1,848 
880 

3,999 



9,257 
636 

9,893 



Bladen 




2 


118 


Brunswick 


1 


102 


Columbus 




1 


953 


District Totals 


5 


173 


District 


14 






Durham 




13 


800 


District 


15A 






Alamance 




3 


780 


District 


15B 






Chatham 






605 


Orange 




1 


,322 



1,927 



7,153 
1,394 

8,547 



Caswell 




267 


Rockingham 


2 


,493 


District Totals 


2 


,760 


District 17B 






Stokes 




451 


Surry 


2 


014 



District Totals 



2,465 



892 
1,353 

810 
2,199 

555 

5,809 
10,023 



1,256 

2,026 

862 

4,144 



9,261 
605 

9,866 



2,055 
1,057 
2,023 

5,135 



13,705 



3,628 



599 

1,342 

1,941 



7,200 
1,454 

8,654 



267 
2,417 

2,684 



440 
1,845 

2,285 



175 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Filings 



Dispositions 



District 18 
Guilford 


11. 


,682 


District 19A 
Cabarrus 

Rowan 


2, 
2, 


,028 
,674 


District Totals 


4. 


,702 


District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 


1 

1 


,481 
,445 


District Totals 


2 


,926 


District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


1. 

1. 

1 
1 


872 
,441 
,516 
,276 
,732 



District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 

Alleghany 

Ashe 

Wilkes 

Yadkin 

District Totals 

District 24 



Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



District Totals 



6,837 



9,040 



465 
2,240 

376 
2,192 

5,273 



325 

212 

1,725 

776 

3,038 



272 
99 

162 
539 

V)2 

1,174 



10,880 



1,750 
2,601 

4,351 



1,564 
1,363 

2,927 



882 
1,419 
1,421 
1,277 
1,677 

6,676 



9,255 



439 
2,207 

400 
2,153 

5,199 



316 

191 

1,732 

760 

2,999 



271 
94 
156 
503 
101 

1.125 





Filings 


Dispositions 


District 25 






Burke 


1,645 


1,647 


Caldwell 


1,310 


1,418 


Catawba 


2,441 


2,453 


District Totals 


5,396 


5,518 


District 26 






Mecklenburg 


23,179 


23,438 


District 27A 






Gaston 


3,952 


4,019 


District 27B 






Cleveland 


2,961 


2,732 


Lincoln 


612 


696 



District Totals 



3,573 



District 28 




Buncombe 


4,162 


District 29 




Henderson 


750 


McDowell 


352 


Polk 


212 


Rutherford 


1,374 


Transylvania 


408 



District Totals 3,096 

District 30 

Cherokee 195 

Clay 46 

Graham 44 

Haywood 701 

Jackson 242 

Macon 371 

Swain 63 

District Totals 1,662 

State Totals 204,071 



3,428 
3,920 



725 
365 
201 
1,818 
410 

3,519 



207 

42 

52 

676 

207 

391 

82 

1,657 

202,032 



176 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 

Delinquent Undisciplined 



Parental 
Rights 



Children 
Before 
Grand Court for 



Capita. F°!o"n r y me'anor Total Truancy Other Total Dependant Neg.ected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck. 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 






3 


2 


5 














2 


36 


38 














3 


22 


25 


1 





1 





3 


19 


22 





2 


2 


1 


1 


2 


4 














40 


85 


125 














3 


5 


8 












55 



171 



227 



2 


3 
1 
4 
19 
2 

31 



2 
2 

2 
2 
1 
13 
2 

24 






5 


1 
4 


10 



10 
41 
36 

29 
11 

162 
12 

301 



6 

30 
22 
29 
11 
99 
6 

203 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 






6 


90 


96 


1 





1 








4 


4 














13 


8 


21 





4 


4 








4 


4 














4 


20 


24 












23 



126 



149 



18 



106 
9 

46 
4 

25 

190 



54 
5 

31 
4 

23 

117 



District 3 




























Carteret 





18 


64 


82 


1 


7 


8 


18 


12 


1 


1 


122 


58 


Craven 





25 


160 


185 


1 


7 


8 


7 


10 


15 


14 


239 


77 


Pamlico 








12 


12 





3 


3 


3 


1 








19 


18 


Pitt 


1 


103 


132 


236 


1 


3 


4 


33 


11 


4 


1 


289 


105 



District Totals 



146 



368 



515 



20 



23 



61 



34 



20 



16 



669 



258 



District 4 




























Duplin 





22 


35 


57 





3 


3 


1 


13 


1 





75 


38 


Jones 








5 


5 


1 


1 


2 


2 





1 





10 


10 


Onslow 





54 


104 


158 


2 


4 


6 


13 


26 


27 





230 


114 


Sampson 





41 


50 


101 





5 


5 


5 


10 


6 


12 


139 


49 


District Totals 





117 


204 


321 


3 


13 


16 


21 


49 


35 


12 


454 


211 


District 5 




























New Hanover 





111 


241 


352 


13 


53 


66 


2 


27 


4 


7 


458 


172 


Pender 





4 


21 


25 


1 


5 


6 


2 


5 


3 





41 


28 


District Totals 





115 


262 


377 


14 


58 


72 


4 


32 


7 


7 


499 


200 


District 6 




























Bertie 








9 


9 











4 





1 





14 


14 


Halifax 





8 3 


41 


124 





12 


12 


9 


14 


5 





164 


77 


Hertford 





11 


26 


37 





1 


1 


6 


9 


4 


2 


59 


52 


Northampton 





4 


15 


19 





3 


3 





5 


5 





32 


27 


District Totals 





98 


91 


189 





16 


16 


19 


28 


15 


2 


269 


170 


District 7 




























Edgecombe 





110 


167 


277 


3 


11 


14 


8 


24 


12 


4 


339 


141 


Nash 





32 


113 


145 


2 


2 


4 


37 


25 


5 


5 


221 


95 


Wilson 





65 


123 


188 


1 


4 


5 


5 


12 


8 


2 


220 


86 


District Totals 





207 


403 


610 


6 


17 


23 


50 


61 


25 


11 


780 


322 


District 8 




























Greene 


1 





7 


8 





1 


1 


3 


1 





2 


15 


15 


Lenoir 





36 


169 


205 


3 


12 


15 


10 


30 


1 


10 


271 


114 


Wayne 





77 


80 


157 


3 


21 


24 


28 


40 


10 


4 


263 


104 



District Totals 



113 



256 



370 



34 



40 



41 



71 



11 



16 



549 



233 



177 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 

Delinqueni Undisciplined 



Other Misdi- 
Capital Felony meant nr Total Truancy Other Totn 



Dependant Neglected Abused 



Parental 

Rights 

Petitions 



Children 
Before 
Crand Court for 

Total First Time 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 



Wake 






11 


20 


31 





12 


12 


11 


47 


73 


L20 


1 


4 


5 





1 


9 


10 





5 


5 





26 


97 


123 


16 





16 





1 1 


2 


13 


1 


3 


4 





96 


201 


297 


18 


24 


42 





141 


303 


444 


37 


4 


41 



2 
6 
7 
3 
2 

20 



19 



S 
3 
7 
3 

1 

19 



23 



5 
2 
6 

3 

16 



LI 



16 



58 

139 

35 

145 
23 

400 



554 



38 
60 
28 
57 
15 

198 



298 



District 11 



Harnett 





68 


73 


141 


Johnston 





18 


31 


49 


Lee 


u 


41 


L20 


161 


District Totals 





127 


224 


351 


District 12 











Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 



9 9 

1 10 11 

3 1 4 

4 20 24 






324 


509 


833 


29 


328 


357 





6 


41 


47 


2 


9 


11 





330 


550 


880 


11 


337 


368 





32 


50 


82 


4 


3 


7 





41 


60 


101 


9 


9 


18 





12 


34 


46 


2 


6 


8 



13 
1 
9 

23 



107 



1 

1 

16 



17 

4 

22 

43 



178 





6 

40 



6 
2 

4 

12 



70 



4 
4 
5 

13 



30 



190 

71 

205 

466 



1,633 



91 
127 

120 



65 
45 
89 

199 



95 


168 


69 


27 


1,549 


543 


12 


10 


1 


3 


84 


48 



591 



32 
72 
73 



District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 



85 



144 



204 305 



229 



511 



15 18 33 



31 33 



18 



42 



46 



16 



21 



338 



646 



177 



212 



District 15A 
Alamance 



109 192 



sm 



40 45 



26 



11 



11 



422 



155 



District 15B 



Chatham 





1 


14 


15 


Orange 





4 8 


116 


164 


District Totals 





49 


130 


179 


District 16 










Robeson 


<) 


150 


246 


396 


Scotland 





70 


109 


179 


District Totals 


') 


220 


355 


575 


District 17A 










Caswell 


i) 


5 


4 


9 


Rockingham 





72 


75 


147 


District Totals 





77 


79 


156 


District 17B 










'.tv.i- . 


■) 


19 


38 


57 


Surry 


■■> 


20 


47 


67 



27 
1 



1 
10 



I I 



3 
10 



13 



32 
3 



35 



3 

10 



13 



10 
20 



30 



32 
2 



14 



4 
15 



19 



23 
34 



57 



2 
13 



15 



4 
L7 



15 
6 



21 



10 



11 



7 
15 



40 

214 



254 



506 
231 



737 



18 

191 



211 



81 
93 



35 
202 



237 



233 
121 



354 



12 
71 



83 



36 
53 



District Totals 



39 



<>,■, 



124 



10 



I ) 



2 1 



174 



89 



178 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 

Children 

Delinquent Undisciplined Parental Before 

Other Misde- Rights Grand Court for 

Capital Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total Dependant Neglected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



District 18 




























Guilford 





209 


568 


777 


59 


91 


150 


65 


74 


22 


42 


1,130 


503 


District 19A 




























Cabarrus 





43 


41 


84 


1 


17 


18 


5 


11 


5 


14 


137 


79 


Rowan 





74 


285 


359 


41 


60 


101 


198 


103 


38 


10 


809 


171 



District Totals 



117 326 



443 



42 



77 



119 



203 



114 



43 



24 



946 



250 



District 19B 



Montgomery 
Randolph 







94 


27 
175 


27 
269 


1 
6 


3 

55 


4 
61 


District Totals 





94 


202 


296 


7 


58 


65 


District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 







1 


1 

61 

125 

41 

95 


44 
71 
67 
37 
129 


45 
132 
192 

78 
225 


3 


3 
3 


1 
7 
2 
7 

19 


4 
7 
2 

10 
22 


District Totals 


1 


32 3 


348 


672 


9 


36 


45 


District 21 
Forsyth 


1 


143 


333 


477 


10 


181 


191 


District 22 

















9 

15 

24 



1 

11 

4 

4 

12 

32 



11 



1 
22 



23 



2 

104 

5 

7 

38 

156 



53 



1 
3 
7 
1 
22 

34 





11 



11 




6 
2 
9 
10 

27 



25 



42 

384 



426 



53 
263 
212 
109 

329 

966 



76 5 



35 

145 



180 



37 
69 
59 
61 
141 

367 



377 



Alexander 





5 


14 


19 


3 


9 


12 


3 


5 


5 


3 


47 


41 


Davidson 





54 


82 


136 


3 


28 


31 


20 


31 


13 


17 


248 


173 


Davie 





19 


17 


36 


3 


6 


9 





4 


3 


1 


53 


40 


Iredell 





9 


160 


169 


14 


24 


38 


9 


19 


2 





237 


116 



District Totals 



87 273 



360 



2 3 



67 



90 



32 



59 



2 3 



21 



585 



370 



District 


21 




























Alleghany 







17 


11 


28 











1 


2 


1 





32 


30 


Ashe 







8 


28 


36 


11 


2 


13 


2 


7 


2 


6 


66 


30 


Wilkes 







51 


109 


160 


73 


17 


90 


22 


130 


28 


21 


451 


98 


Yadkin 







45 


74 


119 


7 


16 


23 


12 


27 


13 


8 


202 


48 



District Totals 



121 



222 



343 



91 



35 



126 



3 7 



166 



44 



35 



751 



206 



District 24 




























Avery 





1 


8 


9 





15 


15 


7 


7 





1 


39 


32 


Madison 





3 


1 


4 





2 


2 


1 


4 


2 


4 


17 


10 


Mitchell 





5 


4 


9 





1 


1 


2 


1 








13 


13 


Watauga 





8 


21 


29 





12 


12 


18 


19 


16 


5 


99 


51 


Yancey 





2 


6 


8 


2 


7 


9 


5 


2 


5 


1 


30 


27 


District Totals 





19 


40 


59 


2 


37 


39 


33 


33 


23 


11 


198 


133 


District 25 




























Burke 





51 


63 


114 


18 


43 


61 


8 


32 


9 


14 


238 


114 


Caldwell 


1 


12 


53 


66 


32 


86 


118 


48 


38 


12 


8 


290 


120 


Catawba 





157 


15L 


308 


14 


28 


42 


25 


30 


10 


5 


420 


153 


District Totals 


1 


220 


267 


488 


64 


157 


221 


31 


100 


31 


27 


948 


387 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 



515 619 1,134 



12 



161 



173 



13 



153 



53 



56 



1,562 



650 



179 



iVl ATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 

Children 
Pelinquem Undusciplmed Parental Before 

Other Misdr- Ki^hts Grand Court for 

Capital Felony nicanor Total Truancy Other Totiil Dependant Neglected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



District 27A 



Gaston 





131 


386 


517 





35 


35 


19 


68 


4 


8 


651 


418 


District 27B 




























Cleveland 





59 


110 


169 


4 


6 


10 


12 


26 


18 


8 


243 


117 


Lincoln 





32 


28 


60 


2 


9 


1 1 


12 


12 


5 


4 


104 


54 


District Totals 





91 


138 


229 


6 


15 


21 


24 


38 


23 


12 


347 


171 


District 28 




























Buncombe 


;i 


99 


248 


147 


22 


193 


215 


56 


51 


20 


20 


709 


256 


District 29 





























Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 






8 


65 


73 


14 


5 


19 





11 


20 


31 


21 


28 


49 





9 


3 


12 


2 





2 





34 


56 


91) 


32 


11 


63 





1 


16 


17 


3 


3 


6 



63 160 



223 



72 



67 



119 



6 
4 
3 
15 
4 

32 



18 
19 

4 
35 

6 

82 



3 



19 

1 

11 



4 

5 

2 

19 



132 
110 

21 
227 

36 

526 



76 
67 
19 
76 
22 

260 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



District Totals 25 60 85 7 64 71 
State Totals 8 4,608 8,639 13,255 590 1,968 2,558 






6 


14 


20 





2 





2 








6 


6 





I 


18 


19 





11 


5 


16 





5 


14 


19 








3 


3 






5 


5 





4 


4 





3 


3 


3 


26 


29 


3 


17 


20 


1 


7 


8 





2 


2 



4 


10 


1 


8 


2 





11 


7 


2 


2 


6 


3 





5 


26 


35 


1,240 


2,008 




3 
2 
2 

2 

18 

714 



3 


43 


34 





23 


15 





11 


11 





69 


47 


4 


46 


42 


1 


39 


35 





12 


12 


8 


243 


196 


:4 


20,299 


9,031 



180 



ia r^ <r cTi •— t \D a^ •— * 
<t <j- CM ^h \o «-) CM 



o <r oo <i- co 



o o o o 



o o -i 



O O — i o o 



_l _< o © 



o o o o 



o o m O O <f o 



cm O O O O 



O O O — i 



O O CM O 



C/5 

H 
H 



o o o <r o 



o o -< 



M O !N CN 



— < O rg O O 



O O (N O 



CM O en O 



co m co en 



w 



z£ 

OH 



CZ3 

o 
z 

5C 



H 



o o o o o o o 



cm o C* i— i <r o cm 



o o o o o 



O O ci O r* 



o a> o o 



O CM O O O 



cm o> o cm 



H 

>«z 

o 

u 

Q 
Q 



o o o o 



^ O O ^-< 



tvj rn h- c^ 



OOCNJOOOO ^J OOOOO O O CM m ,-h CO (N h o n ^D 



r-* O O ^> <r 



<r o o en 



r>. O <f u~\ 



^D O O r^ 



O rn CO <f 



O *x> o p-h r^- 



o <r o o 



tn n oo co 



^ CO AJ 



<r o cc -^ c"> 



T) 3 U D D O- 7 

S o u u j-j -CO Ui 



0| O O U Q 



U — I 



u| 3 i) j_t u _c 

CO J CO T3 J-i l-l U) 

•i-c a) >. fj >, trJ 

Q pa =! S H 3 



•- w -_ W 

U\ 1) Q) •-* 

i-> U-» > .— i 4J 

co ! u tC fj aj 

■H I (13 U (13 'H 

Q|U CJ Cu P-, 



•r^ 3 O C cfl 

Q Q -) O CO 



■H 


CO 


Lj 


u 


2C 


01 


■u 




T3 


to 


3 


c 




CU 


<u 


o 


z 


Cm 



Vj r-l U !-l 



181 



— I O O —i 



ON 00 ON 

cs on n 

CM CM 



O O — < O O <-4 



- 

- 



— i o en o o 



O r^ <r ^ 



a 



> 




ij", 


P 


P 




— ; 


C 


— 


X 


u 




^ 


H 


V 


faU 


- 

a 



r-l (N rJ LTl 



-^ as i x 



O N CN CM 



m -<r <r o oo 



o m o en <h 



1-^ <f r-l 



*v I— I 



- 



- 

- 



r-l m 



^ — I CM 



H f)N PI 



m r*i ^d- co ^ .— < 



CM sD CM G> CM 



m r**. o\ ■— i 



U MJ £ !/) 






U C --i u 



to — i r . 


S 10 


0) 


c >, 


«; — < 


•^ 


Ui 


gj 15 


^: 3 


f-. 


o 


J 3 



j*: > o ai v 

C C 'A U (-( 
-0 CO U C U 



c 


s 


£> 


HI 


V) 


P 


XI 


c 


3 


a 


9 


-H 


--< 


u 


o 


CD 


09 


u 



182 



r-. .-h oo 



in oo 


ro 


<r ro 


ro r^. 


,—i 


m m 


^H <y\ 


.— < 


— ( ^o 



CO 

OS 

w 

H 
H 

< 



o fO ro o m in 



OH 
feU 

l-H 

H 

CO 





oc 




c 












n 




<u 




X 


Ul 


— 


00 


U 


ON 


— 


1— ( 


0£ 


o 


Z 



O CT\ CT\ 



O —( H 



h -^- in 



f5 



o 
z 

as 
< 

a 

£ : 

o 

H 
U 

l-H 

Q 

•-s 
Q 
< 



Q 
H 



0> 

c 


DC 

e 


3 


u 


»-8 


n 




V 


1 


I 


"3- 




00 


c 




C3 
C 




V 


1—1 


a. 


>, 


a 



cm \0 oo tn fi vo 



vo m —i 



00 CO r-4 



oo ro .-< 



— C3 



CO 0J u 



183 



oo n i/> iji ^ 

u~> \0 C* F*"» — < 

cn ro en 



sT f^J 00 (T> 



C/3 * 

h ; 

< $ 

J a 

Z£ | 

> c^ m _ 

So- | 

C5 r<-) 

OH g a 

CO Ctt I X 

^H ' ►. 

- EC - ' 

x £ = « 
>«z ! 



u 

— 

Q 

— : l 

Q 

< 



o — i o o en 



O -* i-h -J m 



o <r cm co 



M u*i m N <J 



en O O O 



o m o o 



O H N H 



ifl ON ^ (N 



r-l (T> fO H 



O vO O O 



O O O <T 



O O cn m 



O CO u*> hs 



<N vO m O 



t-i m cm o co 



O co in o -<r 



-T in rvj cn in 



rJ fO !M O 



(N o in co 



O co r-* c> 



O "N *J N \D 



-J cn 



o m n m 



o m cn co 



o n 'vO <r r-» 



co o co en 



r-l CN O CM O 



O CN O O O 



r-l ro CN O CN 



O p-i O CN <T 



rH \o cn o r-n r-t 



m <f cn cTn p- 



CO — I CN CN 



<j <t» -d - in in 



<f CN r-l r-l VO 



m m fsi ^ -j 



<r <r ^o o cn 



<t cn m m <o 



O 'J fl-H 



■o O t-i 

C CO —( 

co T3 a; at 



w a) > > a) 

i-j | H co co U 
Q !< Q Q r-l 



U CN 



o a. oo x 



184 



o o o o o 



o o o o 



O O ^h 



<T\ o o n o 



r-i o o o o o o 



C/3 

a 

H 
H 

< 
a 

a 
> 

ft! 

o 

a 

I— I -5 

tf) ft* i 
OH ' 

££i 

< a ^ 
a a - 

><z 

o 

H 

y 

S 



ro O O O O 



C/3 

H 
ft! 

O 

u 

H 
U 



^ «r> o O O 



vo ^ o n cn 



O oo o m en 



O ^H O O r-t O O 



iH in O O i-H CsJ C\l 



O en o O in 



O fN o ^o 



O O CM .-I O 



<r o o <r — i <f o 



n -^- co ro cni ,— i 



in cm o in m cn o 



r-< ^ o m <T 



so <t pi cnj o 



o en <r <t en 



3 1) W 

CU U O 3 I-. 

™ s: c ^ h 



Cfl tf> c 



v. >*.= 


3i o 


QJ rC ro 


^ u o 


j: r-l Li 


co tfl n3 



t_> U o I "1 S CO 



185 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

1984-1985 



o 

F 



C 

A 
S 
E 
S 



1.2 



1.1 



1 



M 
1 
1 
1 
I 

O 0.9 
N 
S 



0.8 



0.7 



0.6 



0.5 



04 



0.0 



FILINGS 




ALL CASES 



DISPOSITIONS 



FILINGS 



>-- ■ 



DISPOSITIONS 




MOTOR VEHICLE 



FILINGS 



DISPOSITIONS 



NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE 



75 



76 



77 



7X 



1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 

78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 



The increase in filings and dispositions shown here during 
1984-85 is the result of 0.5% increase in motor vehicle 
filings and a 1 .4% increase in motor vehicle dispositions, 
along with a 7.8% increase in non-motor vehicle filings 



and a 5.7% increase in non-motor vehicle dispositions. 
During 1984-85 65.2% of district court filings and 65.6% 
of district court dispositions were traffic cases. 



186 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Dispositions 

Total - 

Filed Waiver Other Total Dispositions 

District 1 

697 351 1,048 

714 217 931 

1,031 502 1,533 

3,285 1,430 4,715 

922 538 1,460 

1,116 771 1,887 

495 223 718 

8,260 4,032 12,292 

2,871 2,073 4,944 

258 250 508 

2,576 1,432 4,008 

532 293 825 

895 487 1,382 

7,132 4,535 11,667 

3,900 2,718 6,618 

6.576 4,968 11,544 
363 317 680 

9,219 6,048 15,267 

20,058 14,051 34,109 

2,325 1,531 3,856 

585 306 891 

5,390 6,033 11,423 

4,065 2,832 6,897 

12,365 10,702 23,067 

7,915 7,518 15,433 

1,493 1,471 2,964 

9,408 8,989 18,397 

1,550 911 2,461 

5,210 2,762 7,972 

2,278 1,095 3,373 

2,201 1,793 3,994 

11,239 6,561 17,800 

3,192 1,496 4,688 

5,760 2,705 8,465 

4.577 2,300 6,877 

13,529 6,501 20,030 

Greene 1,850 1,052 660 1,712 

Lenoir 6,590 3,563 3,359 6,922 

Wayne 9,614 5,214 4,603 9,817 

District Totals 18,054 9,829 8,622 18,451 



Camden 




1,027 


Chowan 




1,026 


Currituck 




1,493 


Dare 




4,717 


Gates 




1,493 


Pasquotank 




1,919 


Perquimans 




764 


District 


Totals 


12,439 


District 2 






Beaufort 




5,288 


Hyde 




507 


Martin 




3,959 


Tyrrell 




860 


Washington 




1,542 


District 


Totals 


12,156 


District 3 






Carteret 




7,077 


Craven 




11,616 


Pamlico 




701 


Pitt 




16,050 


District 


Totals 


35,444 


District 4 






Duplin 




3,835 


Jones 




874 


Onslow 




11,188 


Sampson 




6,700 


District 


Totals 


22,597 


District 5 






New Hanover 


15,809 


Pender 




3,003 


District 


Totals 


18,812 


District 6 






Bertie 




2,333 


Halifax 




8,499 


Hertford 




3,279 


Northampton 


4,021 


District 


Totals 


18,132 


District 7 






Edgecombe 




4,696 


Nash 




8,286 


Wilson 




7,050 


District 


Totals 


20,032 


District 8 







187 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Dispositions 



Total 
Filed 



Waiver 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



2,066 
3,836 
3,134 
4,239 
1,903 



1,029 
2,522 
1,582 
2,776 
1,249 



1,056 
1,336 
1,573 
1,637 
812 



2,085 
3,858 
3,155 
4,413 
2,061 



District Totals 



15,178 



9,158 



6,414 



15,572 



District 10 



Wake 


58, 


186 


District 11 






Harnett 


5, 


356 


Johnston 


8, 


717 


Lee 


4, 


953 


District Totals 


19, 


,026 


District 12 






Cumberland 


30, 


,215 


Hoke 


2, 


741 


District Totals 


32, 


,956 


District 13 






Bladen 


4, 


,644 


Brunswick 


3, 


,932 


Columbus 


5, 


,752 


District Totals 


14, 


,328 


District 14 






Durham 


23, 


,471 


District 15A 






Alamance 


10, 


,864 


District 15B 






Chatham 


5, 


,063 


Orange 


10, 


,900 


District Totals 


15, 


,963 


District 16 






Robeson 


Hi 


,451 


Scotland 


3, 


,786 


District Totals 


15; 


,237 


District 17A 






Caswell 


1 


,817 


Rockingham 


7 


,770 


District Totals 


9, 


,587 


District 17B 







Stokes 2,812 

Surry 7,010 

District Totals 9,822 



29,732 



2,756 
4,648 
3,117 

10,521 



16,105 
1,728 

17,833 



2,438 
1,994 
2,743 

7,175 



13,437 



6,060 



2,768 
4,702 

7,470 



5,161 
2,349 

7,510 



985 
4,329 

5,314 



1,615 
4,568 

6,183 



30,440 



2,705 
4,284 
1,838 

8,827 



14,735 
1,026 

15,761 



2,170 
2,058 
2,932 

7,160 



8,670 



4,681 



2,082 
4,925 

7,007 



5,921 
1,413 

7.334 



841 
3,142 

3,983 



1,139 
2,279 

3,418 



60,172 



5,461 
8,932 
4,955 

19,348 



30,840 
2,754 

33,594 



4,608 
4,052 
5,675 

14,335 



22,107 



10,741 



4,850 
9,627 

14,477 



11,082 
3,762 

14,844 



1,826 
7,471 

9,297 



2,754 
6,847 

9,601 



188 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Dispositions 



Total 
Filed 



Waiver 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 18 
Guilford 



58,704 



30,368 



28,102 



58,470 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 



District Totals 



13,598 
9,745 

23,343 



District 19B 




Montgomery 


3,946 


Randolph 


10,575 


District Totals 


14,521 


District 20 




Anson 


2,815 


Moore 


5,843 


Richmond 


3,625 


Stanly 


4,592 


Union 


7,060 


District Totals 


23,935 


District 21 





Forsyth 



39,779 



8,711 
5,964 

14,675 



2,580 
6,887 

9,467 



1,839 
3,065 
2,164 
2,571 
4,212 

13,851 
20,725 



5,316 
3,539 

8,855 



1,502 
3,658 

5,160 



918 
2,731 
1,379 
1,987 
2,520 

9,535 



18,775 



14,027 
9,503 

23,530 



4,082 
10,545 

14,627 



2,757 
5,796 
3,543 
4,558 
6,732 

23,386 



39,500 



District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 



District Totals 
District 23 



1,584 

14,101 

2,397 

9,941 

28,023 



Alleghany 




701 


Ashe 




1,819 


Wilkes 




5,024 


Yadkin 




4,152 


District 


Totals 


11,696 


District 24 






Avery 




1,414 


Madison 




2,158 


Mitchell 




1,204 


Watauga 




3,784 


Yancey 




1,903 


District 


Totals 


10,463 


District 25 






Burke 




10,096 


Caldwell 




6,403 


Catawba 




14,400 


District 


Totals 


30,899 


District 26 







Mecklenburg 



64,281 



627 
8,296 
1,695 
6,194 

16,812 



511 
1,151 
3,114 
2,686 

7,462 



850 
1,429 

748 
2,299 
1,222 

6,548 



6,442 
3,407 
7,752 

17,601 



34,580 



885 
5,544 
1,012 
3,446 

10,887 



254 

584 

2,376 

1,415 

4,629 



615 
575 
466 
1,382 
561 

3,599 



3,734 
2,663 
5,654 

12,051 



30,123 



1,512 

13,840 

2,707 

9,640 

27,699 



765 
1,735 
5,490 
4,101 

12,091 



1,465 
2,004 
1,214 
3,681 
1,783 

10,147 



10,176 

6,070 

13,406 

29,652 



64,703 



189 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Total 
Filed 



Waiver 



Dispositions 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 27A 



Gaston 


20 


,377 


District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 


7 

4. 


,637 
,478 


District Totals 


12, 


,115 


District 28 
Buncombe 


16, 


,202 


District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


7, 
4, 
1, 
5, 

1, 


,571 
,259 
,715 
741 
691 


District Totals 


20, 


977 


District 30 







Cherokee 1,791 

Clay 493 

Graham 349 

Haywood 6,194 

Jackson 2,538 

Macon 2,026 

Swain 1,004 

District Totals 14,395 

State Totals 771,994 



10,395 



4,767 
2,130 

6,897 



10,787 



5,905 
3,015 
1,140 
3,796 
1,014 

14,870 



1,114 

355 

196 

4,168 

1,660 

2,131 

619 

10,243 

437.494 



9,533 

2,994 
1,972 

4,966 
5,424 



2,336 
1,390 

483 
1,870 

648 

6,727 



746 
144 
202 
1,815 
724 
783 
336 

4,750 

330,804 



19,928 

7,761 
4,102 

11,863 
16,211 



8,241 
4,405 
1,623 
5,666 
1,662 

21,597 



1,860 

499 

398 

5,983 

2,384 

2,914 

955 

14,993 

768,298 



190 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOJR: CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Uegin 
Pending 

7/1/84 



Tiled 



Total 
Caseload 



Disposed 



% Caseload 
Disposed 



End 
Pending 

6/30/85 



District 1 



Camden 


16 


Chowan 


46 


Currituck 


66 


Dare 


132 


Gates 


10 


Pasquotank 


106 


Perquimans 


32 


District Totals 


408 


District 2 




Beaufort 


139 


Hyde 


33 


Martin 


99 


Tyrrell 


4 


Washington 


18 


District Totals 


293 


District 3 




Carteret 


803 


Craven 


622 


Pamlico 


44 


Pitt 


1,202 


District Totals 


2,671 


District 4 




Duplin 


162 


Jones 


54 


Onslow 


995 


Sampson 


344 


District Totals 


1,555 


District 5 




New Hanover 


1,163 


Pender 


96 


District Totals 


1,259 


District 6 




Bertie 


58 


Halifax 


418 


Hertford 


137 


Northampton 


87 


District Totals 


700 


District 7 





Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



728 
847 
990 



161 
544 
548 

1,623 
261 

1,832 
397 

5,366 



4,984 



21,161 



15,300 



12,326 



7,819 



177 
590 
614 

1,755 
271 

1,938 
429 

5,774 



5,277 



23,832 



16,855 



13,585 



8,519 



167 
545 
534 

1,504 
251 

1,807 
403 

5,211 



2,572 


2,711 


2,546 


333 


366 


329 


1,105 


1,204 


1,027 


266 


270 


258 


708 


726 


692 



4,852 



5,094 


5,897 


5,003 


5,564 


6,186 


5,379 


462 


506 


442 


10,041 


11,243 


9,633 



20,457 



2,357 


2,519 


2,331 


454 


508 


457 


9,279 


10,274 


9,399 


3,210 


3,554 


3,122 



15,309 



11,139 


12,302 


10,966 


1,187 


1,283 


1,116 



12,082 



1,016 


1,074 


1,035 


4,163 


4,581 


4,167 


1,545 


1,682 


1,574 


1,095 


1,182 


1,087 



7,863 



5,171 


5,899 


5,270 


6,393 


7,240 


6,401 


5,105 


6,095 


4,851 



94.4 
92.4 
87.0 
85.7 
92.6 
93.2 
93.9 

90.2 



91.9 



85.8 



90.9 



89.1 
87.0 



1.9 



92.3 



10 
45 
80 

251 
20 

131 
26 

563 



93.9 


165 


89.9 


37 


85.3 


177 


95.6 


12 


95.3 


34 



425 



84.8 


894 


87.0 


807 


87.4 


64 


85.7 


1,610 



3,375 



92.5 


188 


90.0 


51 


91.5 


875 


87.8 


432 



1,546 



1,336 
167 

1,503 



96.4 


39 


91.0 


414 


93.6 


108 


92.0 


95 



656 



89.3 


629 


88.4 


839 


79.6 


1,244 



District Totals 



2,565 



16,669 



19.234 



16,522 



85.9 



2,712 



District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



57 

513 

1,088 



1,004 


1,061 


949 


4,781 


5,294 


4,715 


6,962 


8,050 


6,947 



89.4 


112 


89.1 


579 


86.3 


1,103 



District Totals 



1,658 



12,747 



14,405 



12,611 



87.5 



1,794 



191 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 





Begin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/84 


tiled 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/85 


District 9 














franklin 


198 


1,763 


1,961 


1,827 


93.2 


134 


Granville 


166 


2,095 


2,261 


2,051 


90.7 


210 


Person 


182 


1,504 


1,686 


1,511 


89.6 


175 


Vance 


243 


2,756 


2,999 


2,713 


90.5 


286 


Warren 


55 


767 


822 


767 


93.3 


55 


District Totals 


844 


8,885 


9,729 


8,869 


91.2 


860 


District 10 














Wake 


5,507 


25,095 


30,602 


24,665 


80.6 


5,937 


District 11 














Harnett 


319 


3,584 


3,903 


3,524 


90.3 


379 


Johnston 


430 


4,802 


5,232 


4,752 


90.8 


480 


Lee 


324 


3,463 


3,787 


3,488 


92.1 


299 


District Totals 


1,073 


11,849 


12,922 


11,764 


91.0 


1,158 


District 12 














Cumberland 


2,928 


20,506 


23,434 


19,732 


84.2 


3,702 


Hoke 


156 


1,538 


1,694 


1,531 


90.4 


163 


District Totals 


3,084 


22,044 


25,128 


21,263 


84.6 


3,865 


District 13 














Bladen 


224 


2,012 


2,236 


1,951 


87.3 


285 


Brunswick 


381 


2,446 


2,827 


2,437 


86.2 


390 


Columbus 


336 


3,461 


3,797 


3,485 


91.8 


312 


District Totals 


941 


7,919 


8,860 


7,873 


88.9 


987 


District 14 














Durham 


2,253 


12,930 


15,183 


12,304 


81.0 


2,879 


District 15A 














Alamance 


458 


6,288 


6,746 


6,185 


91.7 


561 


District 15B 














Chatham 


193 


1,912 


2,105 


1,807 


85.8 


298 


Orange 


490 


3,674 


4,164 


3,626 


87.1 


538 


District Totals 


683 


5,586 


6,269 


5,433 


86.7 


836 


District 16 














Pobeson 


602 


9,156 


9,758 


9,028 


92.5 


730 


Scotland 


289 


3,225 


3,514 


3,185 


90.6 


329 


District Totals 


891 


12,381 


13,272 


12,213 


92.0 


1,059 


District 17A 














Caswell 


35 


1,122 


1,157 


1,090 


94.2 


67 


Rockingham 


367 


4,390 


4,757 


4,296 


90.3 


461 


District Totals 


402 


5,512 


5,914 


5,386 


91.1 


528 


District 17B 














Stokes 


80 


1,276 


1,356 


1,153 


85.0 


203 


Surry 


214 


2,950 


3,164 


2,818 


89.1 


346 



District Totals 



294 



4,226 



4,520 



3,971 



87.9 



549 



192 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 





Begin 




Pending 




7/1/84 


District 18 




Guilford 


6,248 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


581 


Rowan 


315 


District Totals 


896 


District 19B 




Montgomery 


286 


Randolph 


434 


District Totals 


720 


District 20 




Anson 


254 


Moore 


376 


Richmond 


159 


Stanly 


218 


Union 


348 


District Totals 


1,355 


District 21 




Forsyth 


2,145 


District 22 




Alexander 


117 


Davidson 


988 


Davie 


116 


Iredell 


928 


District Totals 


2,149 


District 23 




Alleghany 


21 


Ashe 


51 


Wilkes 


308 


Yadkin 


211 


District Totals 


591 


District 24 




Avery 


79 


Madison 


136 


Mitchell 


57 


Watauga 


179 


Yancey 


70 


District Totals 


521 


District 25 




Burke 


499 


Caldwell 


411 


Catawba 


767 


District Totals 


1,677 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


6,384 



Tiled 



27,459 



5,234 
4,001 

9,235 



2,525 
4,783 

7,308 



16,385 



17,053 



14,732 



4,810 



3,051 



Total 
Caseload 



33,707 



5,815 
4,316 

10,131 



2,811 
5,217 

8,028 



17,740 



19,198 



16,881 



5,401 



3,572 



Disposed 



25,613 



5,306 
3,935 

9,241 



2,455 
4,604 

7,059 



1,698 


1,952 


1,763 


4,754 


5,130 


4,644 


3,283 


3,442 


3,311 


2,655 


2,873 


2,556 


3,995 


4,343 


3,895 



16,169 



16,595 



1,229 


1,346 


1,169 


6,680 


7,668 


5,808 


775 


891 


802 


6,048 


6,976 


6,055 



13,834 



295 


316 


304 


745 


796 


720 


,976 


3,284 


2,944 


794 


1,005 


915 



4,883 



515 


594 


514 


467 


603 


522 


416 


473 


401 


1,240 


1,419 


1,249 


413 


483 


421 



3,107 



3,956 


4,455 


3,899 


3,914 


4,325 


3,715 


6,366 


7,133 


6,152 


14,236 


15,913 


13,766 


31,859 


38,243 


30,850 



% Caseload 
Disposed 



76.0 



91.2 
91.2 

91.2 



87.3 
88.2 

87.9 



91.1 



86.4 



82.0 



90.4 



87.0 



86.5 



80.7 



End 
Pending 
6/30/85 



8,094 



509 
381 

890 



356 
613 

969 



90.3 


189 


90.5 


486 


96.2 


131 


89.0 


317 


89.7 


448 



1,571 



2,603 



86.8 


177 


75.7 


1,860 


90.0 


89 


86.8 


921 



3,047 



96.2 


12 


90.5 


76 


89.6 


340 


91.0 


90 



518 



86.5 


80 


86.6 


81 


84.8 


72 


88.0 


170 


87.2 


62 



465 



87.5 


556 


85.9 


610 


86.2 


981 



2,147 



7,393 



193 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 





B 


egin 










End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/84 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/85 


District 27A 
















Gaston 


2 


,240 


14,033 


16,273 


13,472 


82.8 


2,801 


District 27B 
















Cleveland 




391 


4,937 


5,328 


4,920 


92.3 


408 


Lincoln 




217 


2,616 


2,833 


2,459 


86.8 


374 


District Totals 




608 


7,553 


8,161 


7,379 


90.4 


782 


District 28 
















Buncombe 


1 


,330 


11,058 


12,388 


11,199 


90.4 


1,189 


District 29 
















Henderson 




564 


3,547 


4,111 


3,456 


84.1 


655 


McDowell 




128 


1,353 


1,481 


1,311 


88.5 


170 


Polk 




44 


440 


484 


403 


83.3 


81 


Rutherford 




561 


3,084 


3,645 


2,971 


81.5 


674 


Transylvania 




231 


952 


1,183 


1,013 


85.6 


170 


District Totals 


1 


,528 


9,376 


10,904 


9,154 


84.0 


1,750 


District 30 
















Cherokee 




148 


718 


866 


722 


83.4 


144 


Clay 




13 


244 


257 


218 


84.8 


39 


Graham 




61 


399 


460 


364 


79.1 


96 


Haywood 




213 


2,024 


2,237 


2,000 


89.4 


237 


Jackson 




92 


663 


755 


647 


85.7 


108 


Macon 




164 


738 


902 


732 


81.2 


170 


Swain 




47 


513 


560 


437 


78.0 


123 


District Totals 




738 


5,299 


6,037 


5,120 


84.8 


917 


State Totals 


56 


,669 


412,534 


469,203 


402,274 


85.7 


66,929 



194 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT 

CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 



MISDEMEANORS 



DISMISSALS 
99,103 



OTHER 

25,794 



NOT GUILTY PLEA (TRIAL) 

53,034 



WAIVERS 

50,472 




GUILTY PLEA 
136,968 



FELONY PROBABLE CAUSE MATTERS 



PROBABLE CAUSE NOT FOUND 
3,091 



SUPERCEDING 

INDICTMENT 

9,503 




HEARD AND BOUND OVER 
8,090 



PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 
WAIVED 

14,419 



Guilty pleas predominate in the disposition of criminal 
non-motor vehicle cases in the district courts. The waivers 



referred to in the upper chart are waviers of trial and 
guilty plea to a magistrate in worthless check cases. 



195 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 





Worthless 
Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not 

Guilty 

Plea 


Dismissed 
by 
DA 




Judge 


Magistrate 


District 1 












Canden 


1 


30 


37 


35 


12 


Chowan 


37 


262 


24 


116 


66 


Currituck 


14 


164 


65 


76 


100 


Dare 


39 


524 


155 


205 


383 


Gates 


26 


105 


36 


29 


25 


Pasquotank 


99 





27 


996 


390 


Perquimans 


1 


155 


18 


86 


100 


District Totals 


217 


1,240 


362 


1,543 


1,076 


% of Total 


4.2% 


23.8% 


6.9% 


29.6% 


20.6% 


District 2 












Beaufort 


9l) 


777 


703 


444 


247 


Hyde 


10 


120 


7b 


41 


34 


Martin 


214 


316 


31 


161 


98 


Tyrrell 


3 


43 


53 


91 


30 


Washington 


117 


156 


61 


152 


59 


District Totals 


434 


1,412 


924 


889 


468 


% of Total 


8.9% 


29.1% 


19.0% 


18.3% 


9.6% 


District 3 












Carteret 


605 


1,547 


905 


162 


1,496 


Craven 


1,026 


2,003 


162 


362 


1,244 


Pamlico 


16 


150 


88 


48 


HI 


Pitt 


2,640 


3,087 


194 


774 


2,187 


District Totals 


4,287 


6,787 


1,349 


1,346 


5,038 


% of Total 


21.0% 


33.2% 


6.6% 


6.6% 


24 . 6% 


District 4 












Duplin 


515 


457 


35 


312 


243 


Jones 


. 14 


99 


19 


147 


102 


Onslow 


2,221 


3,812 


;y 


431 


1,291 


Sampson 


852 


786 


12 


525 


513 


District Totals 


3,602 


5,154 


145 


1,415 


2,149 


% of Total 


23.5% 


33.7% 


0.9% 


9.2% 


14.0% 


District 5 












New Hanover 


1,003 


4,007 


3 


1,116 


1,886 


Pender 


19 


371 


91 


176 


270 


District Totals 


1,022 


4,378 


94 


1,292 


2,156 


% of Total 


8.5% 


36.2% 


0.8% 


10.7% 


17.8% 


District 6 












Bertie 


45 


323 


63 


201 


178 


Hal i fax 


310 


84', 


>ik 


1,457 


802 


Hertford 


165 


551 


29 


166 


175 


Northampton 


85 


324 


66 


188 


123 


District Totals 


60 5 


2,043 


392 


2,012 


1,278 


X of Total 


7.7% 


26.0% 


5.0% 


25.6% 


16.3% 


District 7 












Edgecombe 


956 


1,085 


260 


1,440 


1,078 


Nash 


1,537 


2,277 


209 


726 


1,104 


Wilson 


845 


1,860 


11/ 


490 


1,144 


District Totals 


3,338 


5,222 


581 


2,656 


3,326 


% of Total 


20.2% 


31.6% 


3.52 


16.1% 


20.1% 



Other 



37 

9 

36 

105 

1 

123 

18 

329 

6.3% 



131 
22 
81 
25 
62 

321 
6.6% 



111 

238 

8 

165 

522 
2.6% 



230 

59 

654 

290 

1,233 
8.1% 



1407 
117 

1,524 
12.6% 



161 
285 
367 
220 

1,033 
13.1% 



255 
227 
118 

600 
3.6% 



Felony 




Probable 




Cause 


Total 


Matters 


Disposed 


15 


167 


31 


545 


79 


534 


93 


1,504 


29 


251 


172 


1,807 


25 


403 


444 


5,211 


8.5% 


100.0% 


154 


2,546 


26 


329 


126 


1,027 


13 


258 


85 


692 


404 


4,852 


8.3% 


100.0% 


177 


5,003 


344 


5,379 


21 


442 


586 


9,633 


1,128 


20,457 


5.5% 


100.0% 


539 


2,331 


17 


457 


911 


9,399 


144 


3,122 


1,611 


15,309 


10.5% 


100.0% 


1,544 


10,966 


72 


1,116 


1,616 


12,082 


13.4% 


100.0% 


64 


1,035 


234 


4,167 


121 


1,574 


81 


1,087 


500 


7,863 


6.4% 


100.0% 


196 


5,270 


321 


6,401 


282 


4,851 


799 


16,522 


4.8% 


100.0% 



196 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

















Felony 






Worthless 
Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not 

Guilty 

Plea 


Dismissed 
by 
DA 


Other 


Probable 
Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 8 


















Greene 


78 


338 


35 


83 


219 


95 


101 


949 


Lenoir 


281 


1,381 


574 


671 


1,224 


302 


282 


4,715 


Wayne 


1,201 


409 


100 


2,053 


2,213 


438 


533 


6,947 


District Totals 


1,560 


2,128 


709 


2,807 


3,656 


835 


916 


12,611 


% of Total 


12.4% 


16.9% 


5.6% 


22.3% 


29.0% 


6.6% 


7.3% 


100.0% 


District 9 


















Franklin 


464 


26 





748 


284 


76 


229 


1,827 


Granville 


312 


825 


20 


289 


257 


129 


219 


2,051 


Person 


144 


463 


118 


289 


323 


39 


135 


1,511 


Vance 


476 


846 


37 


385 


449 


325 


195 


2,713 


Warren 


71 


228 


27 


174 


165 


33 


69 


767 


District Totals 


1,467 


2,388 


202 


1,885 


1,478 


602 


847 


8,869 


% of Total 


16.5% 


26.9% 


2.3% 


21.3% 


16.7% 


6.8% 


9.6% 


100.0% 


District 10 


















Wake 


4,361 


6,263 


2,185 


1,883 


6,332 


1029 


2,612 


24,665 


% of Total 


17.7% 


25.4% 


8.9% 


7.6% 


25.7% 


4.2% 


10.6% 


100.0% 


District 11 


















Harnett 


948 


300 


85 


873 


659 


345 


314 


3,524 


Johnston 


1,101 


1,614 


38 


503 


850 


395 


251 


4,752 


Lee 


893 


708 


22 


739 


551 


266 


309 


3,488 


District Totals 


2,942 


2,622 


145 


2,115 


2,060 


1,006 


874 


11,764 


% of Total 


25.0% 


22.3% 


1.2% 


18.0% 


17.5% 


8.6% 


7.4% 


100.0% 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


5,610 


5,862 


107 


1,900 


4,758 


397 


1,098 


19,732 


Hoke 


322 


25 


3 


800 


223 


72 


86 


1,531 


District Totals 


5,932 


5,887 


110 


2,700 


4,981 


469 


1,184 


21,263 


% of Total 


27.9% 


27.7% 


0.5% 


12.7% 


23.4% 


2.2% 


5.6% 


100.0% 


District 13 


















Bladen 


246 


423 


104 


534 


496 


57 


91 


1,951 


Brunswick 


146 


798 


323 


270 


706 


47 


147 


2,437 


Columbus 


744 


1,180 


18 


321 


852 


206 


164 


3,485 


District Totals 


1,136 


2,401 


445 


1,125 


2,054 


310 


402 


7,873 


% of Total 


14.4% 


30.5% 


5.7% 


14.3% 


26.1% 


3.9% 


5.1% 


100.0% 


District 14 


















Durham 


888 


4,849 


4 


943 


3,895 


677 


1,048 


12,304 


% of Total 


7.2% 


39.4% 


.0% 


7.7% 


31.7% 


5.5% 


8.5% 


100.0% 


District 15A 


















Alamance 


485 


168 


192 


3,390 


1,017 


367 


566 


6,185 


% of Total 


7.8% 


2.7% 


3.1% 


54 . 8% 


16.4% 


5.9% 


9.2% 


100.0% 


District 15B 


















Chatham 


186 


382 


455 


214 


400 


44 


126 


1,807 


Orange 


241 


1,062 


294 


226 


L.240 


202 


361 


3,626 


District Totals 


427 


L,444 


749 


440 


1,640 


246 


487 


5,433 


% of Total 


7.9% 


26.6% 


13.8% 


8.1% 


30.2% 


4.5% 


9.0% 


100.0% 



197 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

















Felony 






Worthless 
Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not 

Guilty 

Plea 


Dismissed 
by 
DA 


Other 


Probable 
Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 16 


















Robeson 


1,403 


3,777 


3 


1,025 


472 


1265 


1,083 


9,028 


Scotland 


371 


1,132 


77 


651 


247 


363 


344 


3,185 


District Totals 


1,774 


4,909 


80 


1,676 


719 


1,628 


1,427 


12,213 


X of Total 


14.5% 


40.2% 


0.7% 


13.7% 


5.9% 


13.3% 


11.7% 


100.0% 


District 17A 


















Caswell 


45 


221 


84 


322 


129 


125 


164 


1,090 


Rockingham 


325 


1,083 


132 


1,136 


571 


544 


505 


4,296 


District Totals 


370 


1,304 


216 


1,458 


700 


669 


669 


5,386 


% of Total 


6.9% 


24 . 2% 


4.0% 


27.1% 


13.0% 


12.4% 


12.4% 


100.0% 


District 17B 


















Stokes 


92 


315 


23 


147 


207 


161 


208 


1,153 


Surry 


163 


817 


200 


399 


568 


252 


419 


2,818 


District Totals 


255 


1,132 


223 


546 


775 


413 


627 


3,971 


% of Total 


6.4% 


28.5% 


5.6% 


13.7% 


19.5% 


10.4% 


15.8% 


100.0% 


District 18 


















Guilford 


1,374 


8,797 


1,316 


2,062 


8,692 


1165 


2,207 


25,613 


7. of Total 


5.4% 


34.3% 


5.1% 


8.1% 


33.9% 


4.5% 


8.6% 


100.0% 


District 19A 


















Cabarrus 


703 


1,676 


172 


1,016 


977 


89 


673 


5,306 


Rowan 


273 


1,114 


147 


721 


695 


474 


511 


3,935 


District Totals 


976 


2,790 


319 


1,737 


1,672 


563 


1,184 


9,241 


% of Total 


10.6% 


30.2% 


3.5% 


18.8% 


18.1% 


6.1% 


12.8% 


100.0% 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 


187 


403 





391 


670 


662 


142 


2,455 


Randolph 


834 


1,479 


121 


621 


1,030 


65 


454 


4,604 


District Totals 


1,021 


1,882 


121 


1,012 


1,700 


727 


596 


7,059 


% of Total 


14.5% 


26.7% 


1.7% 


14.3% 


24.1% 


10.3% 


8.4% 


100.0% 


District 20 


















Anson 


123 


54 


167 


622 


575 


38 


184 


1,763 


Moore 


991 


920 


157 


479 


821 


788 


488 


4,644 


Richmond 


285 


876 


27 


663 


592 


243 


625 


3,311 


Stanly 


554 


690 


257 


305 


387 


81 


282 


2,556 


Union 


r ,J6 


1,113 


88 


677 


728 


325 


428 


3,895 


District Totals 


2,489 


3,653 


696 


2,746 


3,103 


1,475 


2,007 


16,169 


7. of Total 


15.4% 


22.6% 


4.3% 


17.0% 


19.2% 


9.1% 


12.4% 


100.0% 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


1,779 


5,231 





2,443 


4,581 


723 


1,838 


16,595 


X of Total 


10.7% 


31.5% 


0.0% 


14.7% 


27.6% 


4.4% 


11.1% 


100.0% 


District 22 


















Alexander 


60 


361 


38 


174 


303 


154 


79 


1,169 


Davidson 


319 


1,555 


266 


912 


2,223 


383 


150 


5,808 


Davie 


68 


93 


1 


156 


247 


160 


77 


802 


Iredell 


497 


2,000 


376 


824 


1,753 


312 


293 


6,055 


District Totals 


944 


4,009 


681 


2,066 


4,526 


1,009 


599 


13,834 


% of Total 


6.8% 


29.0% 


4.9% 


14.9% 


32 . 7% 


7.3% 


4.3% 


100.0% 



198 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1984 -June 30, 1985 

















Felony 






Worthless 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 
DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


15 


36 


15 


127 


70 


19 


22 


304 


Ashe 


89 


238 


5 


94 


19 


199 


76 


720 


Wilkes 


448 


908 


50 


739 


290 


286 


223 


2,944 


Yadkin 


34 


321 


18 


241 


119 


109 


73 


915 


District Totals 


586 


1,503 


88 


1,201 


498 


613 


394 


4,883 


% of Total 


12.0% 


30.8% 


1.8% 


24.6% 


10.2% 


12.6% 


8.1% 


100.0% 


District 24 


















Avery 


54 


74 


43 


52 


174 


53 


64 


514 


Madison 


10 


27 


22 


100 


277 


15 


71 


522 


Mitchell 


47 


23 


15 


111 


149 


36 


20 


401 


Watauga 


218 


207 


80 


78 


392 


119 


155 


1,249 


Yancey 


9 


110 


48 


66 


103 


64 


21 


421 


District Totals 


338 


441 


208 


407 


1,095 


287 


331 


3,107 


% of Total 


10.9% 


14.2% 


6.7% 


13.1% 


35.2% 


9.2% 


10.7% 


100.0% 


District 25 


















Burke 


456 


27 


54 


1,146 


1,426 


384 


406 


3,899 


Caldwell 


259 


1,011 


430 


325 


970 


274 


446 


3,715 


Catawba 


668 


2,105 


120 


444 


1,586 


405 


824 


6,152 


District Totals 


1,383 


3,143 


604 


1,915 


3,982 


1,063 


1,676 


13,766 


% of Total 


10.0% 


22.8% 


4.4% 


13.9% 


28.9% 


7.7% 


12.2% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


918 


10,776 


1,068 


1,620 


11,776 


2372 


2,320 


30,850 


% of Total 


3.0% 


34 . 9% 


3.5% 


5.3% 


38 . 2% 


7.7% 


7.5% 


100.0% 


District 27A 


















Gaston 


577 


4,642 


19 


1,137 


4,391 


1424 


1,282 


13,472 


% of Total 


4.3% 


34 . 5% 


0.1% 


8.4% 


32 . 6% 


10.6% 


9.5% 


100.0% 


District 27B 


















Cleveland 


371 


1,529 


144 


440 


1,461 


819 


156 


4,920 


Lincoln 


355 


640 


114 


250 


592 


339 


169 


2,459 


District Totals 


726 


2,169 


258 


690 


2,053 


1,158 


325 


7,379 


% of Total 


9.8% 


29.4% 


3.5% 


9.4% 


27.8% 


15.7% 


4.4% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


1,712 


5,616 


44 


630 


2,341 


125 


731 


11,199 


% of Total 


15.3% 


50.1% 


0.4% 


5.6% 


20.9% 


1.1% 


6.5% 


100.0% 


District 29 


















Henderson 


34 


1,379 


399 


131 


1,014 


157 


292 


3,456 


McDowell 


167 


425 


133 


162 


192 


38 


194 


1,311 


Polk 


10 


153 


7 


15 


137 


21 


60 


403 


Rutherford 


61 


980 


302 


504 


606 


305 


213 


2,971 


Transylvania 


33 


360 


127 


59 


291 


69 


74 


1,013 


District Total 


355 


3,297 


968 


871 


2,240 


590 


833 


9,154 


% of Total 


3.9% 


36.0% 


10.6% 


9.5% 


24 . 5% 


6.4% 


9.1% 


100.0% 



199 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 









Jul 


ly 1, 198 


4 — June 30, 


1985 




Felony 






Worthless 
Check 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not 
Guilty 


Dismissed 
by 
DA 




Probable 
Cause 


Total 




Waiver 


Judge 


Ma 


igistrate 


Plea 


Other 


Matters 


Disposed 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


53 


174 




1 


35 


260 


145 


54 


722 


Clay 


IS 


22 




73 


30 


35 


35 


5 


218 


Graham 


2 


53 




102 


45 


97 


40 


25 


364 


Haywood 


67 


604 




94 


168 


677 


64 


326 


2,000 


Jackson 


17 


145 




93 


22 


191 


99 


80 


647 


Macon 


19 


155 




94 


36 


258 


97 


73 


732 


Swain 


16 


115 




66 


40 


137 


7 


56 


437 


District Totals 


192 


1,268 




523 


376 


1,655 


487 


619 


5,120 


X of Total 


3.8% 


24 . 8% 




10.2% 


7.3% 


32.3% 


9.5% 


12.1% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


50,472 


120,948 


16 


,020 


53,034 


99,103 


27,594 


35,103 


402,274 


Z of Total 


12.5% 


30.1% 




4.0% 


13.2% 


24 . 6% 


6.9% 


8.7% 


100.0% 



200 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 



0-90 



District 1 



Camden 


8 


Chowan 


35 


Currituck 


7b 


Dare 


236 


Gates 


12 


Pasquotank 


122 


Perquimans 


16 


District Totals 


505 


% of Total 


89.7% 


District 2 




Beaufort 


142 


Hyde 


34 


Martin 


60 


Tyrrell 


10 


Washington 


27 


District Totals 


273 


% of Total 


64 . 2% 


District 3 




Carteret 


585 


Craven 


606 


Pamlico 


50 


Pitt 


1,139 


District Totals 


2,380 


% of Total 


70.5% 


District 4 




Duplin 


167 


Jones 


45 


Onslow 


743 


Sampson 


385 


District Totals 


1,340 


% of Total 


86.7% 


District 5 




New Hanover 


961 


Pender 


115 


District Totals 


1,076 


% of Total 


71.6% 


District 6 




Bertie 


28 


Halifax 


307 


Hertford 


93 


Northampton 


84 


District Totals 


512 


% of Total 


78.0% 


District 7 





Edgecombe 457 

Nash 579 

Wilson 682 

District Totals 1,718 

% of Total 63.3% 



91-120 







2 
4 
2 
2 

10 
1.8% 



2 


5 
1 
6 

14 
3.3% 



b3 

40 

2 

93 

198 

5.9% 



12 
2 

50 
12 

76 
4.9% 



54 
5 



59 

3.9% 



1 

34 

4 

1 

40 
6.1% 



36 
89 
73 

198 
7.3% 



121-180 



1 
1 


5 

1 
3 



11 
2.0% 



10 


13 

1 

1 

25 
5.9% 



72 

66 

7 

144 

289 

8.6% 




57 

25 

90 
5.8% 



72 
9 



il 

.4% 



2 

24 

3 



37 
5.6% 



80 
70 

112 

262 
9.7% 



181-365 



1 
4 
3 

8 
3 
2 
2 

23 
4.1% 



6 
1 
51 



58 
13.6% 



130 

66 



166 

362 
10.7% 





1 

24 

7 

32 
2.1% 



139 
15 



154 
10.2% 



5 

34 

4 

2 

45 
6.9% 



45 

58 

133 

236 
8.7% 



366-730 



6 

1.1% 



5 

2 

37 





44 
10.4% 



32 

29 

5 

49 

115 
3.4% 



1 

3 
1 


5 
0.3% 



80 
15 

95 

6.3% 



3 

13 
2 



18 
2.7% 



11 
38 
47 

96 
3.5% 



.730 


Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 





10 


63.6 


4 


45 


135.0 





80 


39.9 





251 


30.3 





20 


94.2 


l 


131 


41.1 


3 


26 


234.8 


8 


563 


54.8 


1.4% 


100.0% 







165 


58.3 





37 


59.3 


11 


177 


270.7 





12 


38.8 





34 


41.4 


11 


425 


144.9 


2.6% 


100.0% 




12 


894 


110.8 





807 


84.2 





64 


73.5 


19 


1,610 


97.6 


31 


3,375 


97.5 


0.9% 


100.0% 







188 


42.4 





51 


66.2 





875 


44.9 


3 


432 


44.7 


3 


1,546 


45.3 


0.2% 


100.0% 




30 


1,336 


117.3 


8 


167 


161.9 


38 


1,503 


122.3 


2.5% 


100.0% 







39 


98.6 


2 


414 


81.8 


2 


108 


66.2 





95 


43.9 


4 


656 


74.8 


0.6% 


100.0% 







629 


72.0 


5 


839 


91.6 


197 


1,244 


298.4 


202 


2,712 


181.9 


7.4% 


100.0% 





Median 
Age 



32.0 
20.0 
32.0 
13.0 
90.0 
20.0 
51.0 

20.0 



23.0 
19.0 
214.0 
15.0 
25.5 

48.0 



47.0 
44.0 



39 

47 



46.0 



39.0 
37.0 
26.0 
19.0 

25.0 



39.0 
39.0 

39.0 



30.0 
41.0 
35.0 
25.0 

33.0 



40.0 
39.0 
74.0 

52.0 



201 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 
Age 


District 8 




















Greene 


101 


3 


3 


4 


1 





112 


52.7 


38.0 


Lenoir 


439 


40 


79 


18 


3 





579 


62.8 


46.0 


Wayne 


836 


81 


87 


93 


6 





1,103 


69.3 


48.0 


District Totals 


1,376 


124 


169 


115 


10 





1,794 


66.2 


46.0 


X of Total 


76.7% 


6.9% 


9.4% 


6.4% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 9 




















Franklin 


U5 


2 


10 


3 


2 


2 


134 


61.6 


19.5 


Granville 


150 


21 


9 


21 


3 


6 


210 


117.5 


30.0 


Person 


128 


8 


5 


16 


14 


4 


175 


116.1 


27.0 


Vance 


238 


8 


12 


16 


3 


9 


286 


86.4 


27.0 


Warren 


36 


9 


6 


4 








238 


70.1 


66.0 


District Totals 


667 


48 


42 


60 


22 


21 


860 


95.1 


26.0 


X of Total 


77.6% 


5.6% 


4.9% 


7.0% 


2.6% 


2.4% 


100.0% 






District 10 




















Wake 


3,721 


436 


670 


735 


288 


87 


5,937 


117.3 


58.0 


X of Total 


62.7% 


7.3% 


11.3% 


12.4% 


4.9% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






District 11 




















Harnett 


2 84 


22 


20 


16 


15 


22 


379 


140.7 


33.0 


Johnston 


392 


24 


22 


18 


6 


18 


480 


107.2 


30.5 


Lee 


222 


47 


13 


11 


4 


2 


299 


78.6 


41.0 


District Totals 


898 


93 


55 


45 


25 


42 


1,158 


110.8 


33.0 


X of Total 


77.5% 


8.0% 


4.7% 


3.9% 


2.2% 


3.6% 


100.0% 






District 12 




















Cumberland 


2,621 


351 


439 


237 


29 


25 


3,702 


78.2 


52.0 


Hoke 


141 


7 


8 


6 


1 





163 


48.6 


26.0 


District Totals 


2,762 


358 


447 


243 


30 


25 


3,865 


76.9 


51.0 


X of Total 


71.5% 


9.3% 


11.6% 


6.3% 


0.8% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 13 




















Bladen 


226 


8 


18 


22 


5 


6 


285 


91.7 


38.0 


Brunswick 


314 


20 


J2 


10 


7 


7 


390 


76.5 


30.0 


Columbus 


248 


14 


25 


24 


1 





312 


63.2 


37.0 


District Totals 


788 


42 


75 


56 


13 


13 


987 


76.7 


37.0 


X of Total 


79.8% 


4.3% 


7.6% 


5.7% 


1.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 






District 14 




















Durham 


1,592 


230 


210 


336 


284 


227 


2,879 


206.8 


72.0 


% of Total 


55.3% 


8.0% 


7.3% 


11.7% 


9.9% 


7.9% 


100.0% 






District 15A 




















Alamance 


490 


17 


34 


20 








561 


40.7 


20.0 


Z of Total 


87.3% 


3.0% 


6.1% 


3.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 15B 




















Chatham 


266 


I'j 


8 


7 


5 


2 


298 


52.5 


27.0 


Orange 


388 


19 


24 


61 


19 


27 


538 


143.2 


40.0 


District Totals 


654 


29 


32 


68 


24 


29 


836 


110.8 


33.0 


X of Total 


78.2% 


3.5% 


3.8% 


8.1% 


2.9% 


3.5% 


100.0% 







202 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pendin;' Cases (Days) 



0-90 



District 16 




Robeson 


655 


Scotland 


220 


District Totals 


875 


% of Total 


82.6% 


District 17A 




Caswell 


53 


Rockingham 


398 


District Totals 


451 


% of Total 


85.4% 


District 17B 




Stokes 


188 


Surry 


310 


District Totals 


498 


% of Total 


90.7% 


District 18 




Guilford 


4,470 


% of Total 


55.2% 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


457 


Rowan 


343 


District Totals 


800 


% of Total 


89.9% 


District 19B 




Montgomery 


281 


Randolph 


541 


District Totals 


822 


% of Total 


84 . 8% 


District 20 




Anson 


152 


Moore 


361 


Richmond 


103 


Stanly 


289 


Union 


335 


District Totals 


1,240 


% of Total 


78.9% 


District 21 




Forsyth 


1,490 


% of Total 


57.2% 


District 22 




Alexander 


146 


Davidson 


917 


Davie 


47 


Iredell 


606 


District Totals 


1,716 


% of Total 


56.3% 



91-120 



33 

7 



40 
3.8% 



10 
1.9% 



3 
16 



19 
3.5% 



736 
9.1% 



20 
20 



40 
4.5% 



19 

28 



47 
4.9% 



6 

38 
12 
13 

25 

94 
6.0% 



109 

4.2% 



3 

218 
20 
3b 

277 
9.1% 



121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


29 


10 


3 


9 


28 


29 


38 


38 


32 


3.6% 


3.6% 


3.0% 


2 


6 


2 


14 


32 


10 


16 


38 


12 


3.0% 


7.2% 


2.3% 


7 


4 


1 


6 


11 


3 


13 


15 


4 


2.4% 


2.7% 


0.7% 


964 


1,328 


570 


11.9% 


16.4% 


7.0% 



11 



19 
2.1% 



19 
13 



32 
3.3% 



18 
22 



9 
18 



75 
4.8% 



131 
7.0% 



109 



48 



167 

5.5% 



20 
7 



27 
3.0% 



32 
2b 



58 

6.0% 



4 
47 

4 

6 
18 

79 
5.0% 



439 

16.9% 



20 

340 
5 

112 

477 
15.7% 




3 

3 

0.3% 



4 
2 

6 

0.6% 



4 
8 

2 


12 

26 
1.7% 



382 
14.7% 



3 

251 
6 

38 

298 

9.8% 



.730 


Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 




36 


730 
329 


38.5 
236.1 


36 
3.4% 


1,059 

100.0% 


99.9 


1 




67 

461 


77.1 
57.4 


1 
0.2% 


528 
100.0% 


59.9 






203 

346 


41.8 
44.5 



0.0% 


549 
100.0% 


43.5 


26 
0.3% 


8,094 

100.0% 


125.3 



1 




509 

381 


42.1 
39.5 


1 
0.1% 


890 
100.0% 


40.9 


1 

3 


356 

613 


62.6 
54.4 


4 
0.4% 


969 
100.0% 


57.5 


5 

10 
2 


40 


189 
486 

131 
317 
448 


84.6 
91.0 
67.3 
36.4 
234.4 


57 
3.6% 


1,571 
100.0% 


118.1 


2 
0.1% 


2,603 
100.0% 


148.9 



3 

25 
3 

81 

112 
3.7% 



177 


86. 


.7 


1,860 


168 


.3 


89 


201, 


.7 


921 


196 


.6 


3,047 


173. 


.1 


100.0% 







Median 

Age 



20.0 
33.0 



20.0 



24.0 
24.0 



24.0 



25.0 
24.0 



24.0 



75.0 



24.0 
20.0 



20.0 



26.0 
27.0 



27.0 



27.0 
38.5 
26.0 
25.0 
27.0 

26.0 



55.0 



26.0 
95.0 
81.0 

47.0 

68.0 



203 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 
Age 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


10 








2 








12 


69.5 


22.5 


Ashe 


42 


10 


1 


6 


10 


7 


76 


219.8 


55.0 


Wilkes 


149 


13 


17 


31 


50 


80 


340 


401.0 


147.5 


Yadkin 


76 


5 


2 


5 


2 





90 


47.1 


12.0 


District Totals 


277 


28 


20 


44 


62 


87 


518 


305.2 


68.0 


Z of Total 


53.5% 


5.4% 


3.9% 


8.5% 


12.0% 


16.8% 


100.0% 






District 24 




















Avery 


40 


10 


10 


9 


11 





80 


138.4 


95.0 


Madison 


54 


10 


8 


7 


1 


1 


81 


89.2 


54.0 


Mitchell 


56 


12 





4 








72 


60.1 


41.0 


Watauga 


128 


7 


10 


25 








170 


74.3 


47.0 


Yancey 


4b 


4 





12 








62 


96.6 


56.0 


District Totals 


324 


43 


28 


57 


12 


1 


465 


88.7 


54.0 


X of Total 


69.7% 


9.2% 


6.0% 


12.3% 


2.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 25 




















Burke 


441 


35 


47 


23 


5 


5 


556 


71.9 


33.0 


Caldwell 


518 


27 


32 


32 


1 





610 


54.0 


33.0 


Catawba 


79b 


67 


36 


58 


15 


9 


981 


73.7 


33.0 


District Totals 


1,755 


129 


115 


113 


21 


14 


2,147 


67.6 


33.0 


X of Total 


81.7% 


6.0% 


5.4% 


5.3% 


1.0% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


4,199 


512 


785 


991 


534 


372 


7,393 


177.2 


71.0 


X of Total 


56 . 8% 


6.9% 


10.6% 


13.4% 


7.2% 


5.0% 


100.0% 






District 27A 




















Gaston 


1,902 


204 


208 


294 


137 


56 


2,801 


116.8 


48.0 


% of Total 


67.9% 


7.3% 


7.4% 


10.5% 


4.9% 


2.0% 


100.0% 






District 27B 




















Cleveland 


359 


9 


10 


18 


7 


5 


408 


59.8 


20.0 


Lincoln 


308 


15 


8 


38 


4 


1 


374 


57.4 


19.0 


District Totals 


667 


24 


18 


56 


11 


6 


782 


58.7 


19.0 


X of Total 


85.3% 


3.1% 


2.3% 


7.2% 


1.4% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






District 28 




















Buncombe 


895 


72 


100 


110 


11 


1 


1,189 


63.4 


27.0 


X of Total 


75.3% 


6.1% 


8.4% 


9.3% 


0.9% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 29 




















Henderson 


440 


34 


40 


77 


38 


26 


655 


135.4 


48.0 


McDowell 


134 


2 


5 


13 


13 


3 


170 


109.3 


27.0 


Polk 


72 


5 


1 





3 





81 


59.9 


47.0 


Rutherford 


410 


23 


52 


110 


63 


16 


674 


158.1 


52.0 


Transylvania 


114 


11 


6 


9 


30 





170 


155.8 


78.5 


District Totals 


1,170 


75 


104 


209 


147 


45 


1,750 


140.1 


48.0 


X of Total 


66.9% 


4.3% 


5.9% 


11.9% 


8.4% 


2.6% 


100.0% 







204 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1985 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


— Total 

Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 
Age 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


77 


16 


5 


12 


21 


13 


144 


200.8 


85.0 


Clay 


25 


2 


8 


2 


2 





39 


84.9 


30.0 


Graham 


77 


2 





13 


3 


1 


96 


86.0 


37.0 


Haywood 


192 


12 


5 


8 


13 


7 


237 


93.1 


24.0 


Jackson 


85 


12 


3 


7 


1 





108 


56.3 


31.0 


Macon 


78 


5 


9 


17 


J9 


22 


170 


314.5 


132.0 


Swain 


97 


8 


8 





7 


3 


123 


101.6 


41.0 


District Totals 


631 


57 


38 


59 


86 


46 


917 


146.8 


46.0 


% of Total 


68.8% 


6.2% 


4.1% 


6.4% 


9.4% 


5.0% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


44,934 


4,488 


5,450 


7,020 


3,429 


1,608 


66,929 


122.2 


48.0 


% of Total 


67.1% 


6.7% 


8.1% 


10.5% 


5.1% 


2.4% 


100.0% 







205 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 — June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


- Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 
Age 


District 1 






















Camden 




163 


3 


1 











167 


25.8 


20.0 


Chowan 




519 


5 


1 


15 


2 


3 


545 


33.1 


15.0 


Currituck 




513 


7 


13 


1 





u 


534 


27.1 


22.0 


Dare 




1,418 


53 


2b 


b 


1 





1,504 


31.2 


22.0 


Gates 




249 





1 


1 








251 


18.6 


17.0 


Pasquotank 




1,749 


16 


11 


26 


5 





1,807 


30.5 


22.0 


Perquimans 




392 


2 


6 


1 


2 





403 


27.7 


19.0 


District 


Totals 


5,003 


86 


59 


50 


10 


3 


5,211 


29.7 


21.0 


Z of Total 


96.0% 


1.7% 


1.1% 


1.0% 


0.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 




2,507 


14 


4 


10 


7 


4 


2,546 


17.8 


8.0 


Hyde 




318 


3 


6 


1 





1 


329 


23.8 


13.0 


Martin 




971 


20 


16 


20 








1,027 


22.3 


9.0 


Tyrrell 




252 


4 


1 


1 








258 


20.9 


14.0 


Washington 




665 


15 


10 


2 








692 


19.9 


9.0 


District 


Totals 


4,713 


56 


37 


34 


7 


5 


4,852 


19.6 


9.0 


X of Total 


97.1% 


1.2% 


0.8% 


0.7% 


0.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 3 






















Carteret 




4,141 


292 


294 


174 


47 


55 


5,003 


64.3 


27.0 


Craven 




4,724 


254 


238 


136 


26 


1 


5,379 


39.5 


21.0 


Pamlico 




389 


16 


16 


16 


1 


4 


442 


45.0 


15.0 


Pitt 




8,226 


^24 


535 


246 


85 


17 


9,633 


52.4 


28.0 


District 


Totals 


17,480 


1,086 


1,083 


572 


159 


77 


20,457 


51.7 


25.0 


X of Total 


85.4% 


3.3% 


5.3% 


2.8% 


0.8% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






... rict 4 






















ju,jlin 




2,205 


54 


31 


32 


3 


b 


2,331 


31.1 


16.0 


Jones 




422 


L8 


5 


9 


3 


o 


457 


37.5 


23.0 


Onslow 




8,689 


335 


2J1 


135 


9 





9,399 


30.8 


16.0 


S crioson 




2,826 


134 


111 


42 


7 


2 


3,122 


38.8 


27.0 


District 


Totals 


14,142 


541 


378 


218 


22 


8 


15,309 


32.7 


19.0 


% of Total 


92.4% 


3.5% 


2.5% 


1.4% 


0.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 5 






















New Hanover 


10,129 


244 


170 


266 


1 38 


19 


10,966 


37.5 


17.0 


Pender 




1,051 


24 


23 


14 


3 


1 


1,116 


28.9 


16.0 


District 


Totals 


11,180 


268 


193 


280 


141 


20 


12,082 


36.7 


17.0 


X of Total 


92.5% 


2.2% 


1.6% 


2.3% 


1.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 6 






















Bertie 




972 


33 


10 


1 1 


9 





1,035 


28.4 


15.0 


Halifax 




3,712 


145 


153 


82 


73 


2 


4,167 


45.5 


23.0 


Hertford 




1,444 


38 


44 


28 


12 


8 


1,574 


46.2 


18.0 


Northampton 


1,033 


21 


21 


10 


2 





1,087 


28.5 


15.0 


District 


Totals 


7,161 


237 


228 


131 


96 


10 


7,863 


41.0 


20.0 


% of Total 


91.1% 


3.0% 


2.9% 


1.7% 


1.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 7 






















Edgecombe 




4,468 


263 


235 


208 


76 


20 


5,270 


54.2 


26.0 


Nash 




5,519 


404 


256 


195 


22 


5 


6,401 


45.8 


26.0 


Wilson 




3,861 


271 


.f, 4 


365 


86 


14 


4,851 


66.3 


30.0 


District 


Totals 


13,848 


938 


745 


768 


184 


39 


16,522 


54.5 


28.0 


X of Total 


83.8% 


5.7% 


4.5% 


4.6% 


1.1% 


0.2% 


100.0% 







206 



0-90 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 



91-120 



121-180 



181-365 



366-730 



>730 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 
Age 



Median 
Age 



District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



856 
4,042 
5,537 



District Totals 10,435 
% of Total 82.7% 



46 
268 
544 

858 

6.8% 



26 
284 
488 

798 

6.3% 



21 
114 
342 

477 
3.8% 




7 

36 

43 
0.3% 








0.0% 



949 
4,715 
6,947 

12,611 
100.0% 



35.0 
44.6 
59.5 

52.1 



17.0 
27.0 
37.0 

32.0 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



1,646 
1,901 
1,375 
2,470 
708 



64 
46 
49 
113 
18 



43 
58 
30 
56 

20 



41 
23 
21 
64 
16 



12 

19 

26 

7 

2 



21 
4 

10 
3 
3 



1,827 
2,051 
1,511 
2,713 
767 



45.6 
35.8 
46.5 
36.8 
34.2 



15.0 
17.0 
24.0 
21.0 
15.0 



District Totals 8,100 
% of Total 91.3% 



290 
3.3% 



207 
2.3% 



165 
1.9% 



66 

0.7% 



41 
0.5% 



8,869 
100.0% 



39.8 



19.0 



District 10 
Wake 

% of Total 



18,346 
74.4% 



1,804 
7.3% 



1,721 
7.0% 



2,167 
8.8% 



555 
2.3% 



72 
0.3% 



24,665 
100.0% 



79.7 



49.0 



District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 



3,261 
4,270 
3,205 



District Totals 10,736 
% of Total 91.3% 



District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 



15,533 
1,347 



District Totals 16,880 
% of Total 79.4% 



District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 



1,781 
2,118 
3,207 



District Totals 7,106 
% of Total 90.3% 



District 14 




Durham 


10,209 


% of Total 


83.0% 


District 15A 




Alamance 


5,949 


% of Total 


96.2% 


District 15B 




Chatham 


1,626 


Orange 


3,100 



87 


89 


70 


207 


173 


95 


86 


98 


81 


380 


360 


246 


3.2% 


3.1% 


2.1% 


1,332 


1,396 


1,417 


95 


65 


19 


1,427 


1,461 


1,436 


6.7% 


6.9% 


6.8% 


51 


46 


40 


104 


103 


55 


106 


114 


48 


261 


263 


143 


3.3% 


3.3% 


1.8% 


730 


677 


399 


5.9% 


5.5% 


3.2% 



130 
2.1% 



81 
171 



54 
0.9% 



54 
176 



45 
0.7% 



42 
10 3 



17 

6 

16 

39 
0.3% 



52 

5 

57 

0.3% 



28 

18 
9 

55 
0.7% 



128 
1.0% 



6 
0.1% 



4 
65 





1 

2 


3,524 
4,752 
3,488 


3 

.0% 


11,764 
100.0% 


2 



19,732 
1,531 


2 
.0% 


21,263 

100.0% 


5 

39 
1 


1,951 
2,437 
3,485 


45 
0.6% 


7,873 

100.0% 


161 
1.3% 


12,304 
100.0% 



1 

.0% 





11 



6,185 
100.0% 



1,807 
3,626 



34.6 
36.7 
34.3 

35.4 



58.2 
41.7 



57.0 



43.7 
60.7 
35.4 

45.3 



62.8 



29.6 



36.7 
55.2 



20.0 
21.0 
17.0 

20.0 



30.0 
29.0 



30.0 



23.0 
27.0 
22.0 

23.0 



30.0 



21.0 



21.0 
31.0 



District Totals 4,726 
% of Total 87.0% 



252 

4.6% 



230 

4.2% 



145 

2.7% 



69 
1.3% 



11 
0.2% 



5,433 
100.0% 



49.1 



28.0 



207 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 



District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 



0-90 



8,505 
3,045 



District Totals 11,550 
X of Total 94.6% 



District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 



1,041 
4,058 



District Totals 5,099 
S of Total 94.7% 



District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 



1,058 
2,645 



District Totals 3,703 
X of Total 93.3% 

District 18 



91-120 



221 
46 



267 

2.2% 



35 

113 



148 
2.7% 



47 

87 



134 
3.4% 



121-180 



210 
29 



239 

2.0% 



3 
65 



68 
1.3% 



41 
67 



108 
2.7% 



Cabarrus 
Rowan 



4,971 
3,718 



District Totals 8,689 
I of Total 94.0% 



District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 



2,251 
4,104 



District Totals 6,355 
Z of Total 90.0% 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 



1,532 
4,401 
3,214 
2,453 
3,715 



District Totals 15,315 
% of Total 94.7% 



District 21 




Forsyth 


15,519 


% of Total 


93.5% 


District 22 




Alexander 


1,081 


Davidson 


5,045 


Davie 


708 


Iredell 


5,504 



166 

8^ 



248 
2.7% 



73 
281 



354 

5.0% 



106 
58 
61 
63 

376 
2.3% 



344 
2.1% 



37 
312 

31 
217 



93 
66 

159 
1.7% 



80 

142 

222 
3.1% 



51 
89 
21 
28 
65 

254 
1.6% 



330 

2.0% 



41 
234 

23 
183 



181-365 



79 
32 



111 
0.9% 



10 
49 



59 
1.1% 



7 
14 



21 
0.5% 



42 

42 



84 
0.9% 



48 
75 



123 

1.7% 



66 
38 
12 
11 
34 

161 
1.0% 



296 

1.8% 



9 

171 
29 

90 



366-730 



10 
25 



35 

0.3% 



10 
0.2% 



5 

0.1% 



Guilford 


17,932 


2,076 


2,352 


2,250 


934 


% of Total 


70.0% 


8.1% 


9.2% 


8.8% 


3.6% 


District 19A 













34 
18 



52 
0.6% 



4 
0.1% 



16 
5 
5 
3 

14 

43 
0.3% 



100 
0.6% 



1 
41 

9 
31 



>730 


Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


3 

8 


9,028 
3,185 


26.6 
30.7 


11 
0.1% 


12,213 
100.0% 


27.7 



2 


1,090 
4,296 


25.2 
32.4 


2 

.0% 


5,386 

100.0% 


30.9 






1,153 
2,818 


32.8 
36.0 



0.0% 


3,971 
100.0% 


35.1 


69 

0.3% 


25,613 

100.0% 


87.1 




9 


5,306 
3,935 


9 
0.1% 


9,241 
100.0% 



1 


2,455 
4,604 


1 

.0% 


7,059 
100.0% 


10 
5 
1 


4 


1,763 
4,644 
3,311 
2,556 
3,895 


20 
0.1% 


16,169 
100.0% 


6 

.0% 


16,595 

100.0% 



o 
5 
2 
JO 



1,169 

5,808 

802 

6,055 



36.4 
35.4 



36.0 



33.5 
44.2 

40.5 



57.0 
29.2 
23.2 
27.1 
30.2 

30.9 



37.8 



32.8 
46.6 
48.4 
48.0 



Median 
Age 



14.0 
15.0 



15.0 



16.0 
21.0 



20.0 



20.0 
28.0 



27.0 



51.0 



26.0 
22.0 



24.0 



22.0 
35.0 

30.0 



33.0 
19.0 
15.0 
19.0 
17.0 

18.0 



24.0 



20.0 
26.0 
22.0 

30.0 



District Totals 12,338 
% of Total 89.2% 



597 
4.3% 



481 
3.5% 



299 
2.2% 



82 

0.6% 



37 
0.3% 



13,834 
100.0% 



46.2 



27.0 



208 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


District 23 








Alleghany 


286 


7 


6 


Ashe 


685 


22 


6 


Wilkes 


2,809 


61 


52 


Yadkin 


850 


33 


20 


District Totals 


4,630 


123 


84 


% of Total 


94 . 8% 


2.5% 


1.7% 


District 24 








Avery 


395 


24 


33 


Madison 


389 


23 


25 


Mitchell 


335 


27 


17 


Watauga 


944 


73 


99 


Yancey 


350 


32 


9 


District Totals 


2,413 


179 


183 


% of Total 


77.7% 


5.8% 


5.9% 


District 25 








Burke 


3,396 


201 


201 


Caldwell 


3,208 


170 


169 


Catawba 


5,272 


348 


376 


District Totals 


11,876 


719 


746 


% of Total 


86 . 3% 


5.2% 


5.4% 


District 26 








Mecklenburg 


24,261 


1,824 


1,824 


% of Total 


78.6% 


5.9% 


5.9% 


District 27A 








Gaston 


11,242 


823 


637 


% of Total 


83.4% 


6.1% 


4.7% 


District 27B 








Cleveland 


4,644 


157 


76 


Lincoln 


2,319 


74 


44 


District Totals 


6,963 


231 


120 


% of Total 


94.4% 


3.1% 


1.6% 


District 28 








Buncombe 


9,974 


375 


316 


% of Total 


89.1% 


3.3% 


2.8% 


District 29 








Henderson 


2,923 


167 


93 


McDowell 


1,224 


38 


23 


Polk 


354 


24 


9 


Rutherford 


2,406 


159 


184 


Transylvania 


821 


49 


68 


District Totals 


7,728 


437 


377 


% of Total 


84.4% 


4.8% 


4.1% 



181-365 



3 

2 

9 

12 

26 
0.5% 



34 
36 
14 
99 

15 

198 

6.4% 



91 
158 
136 

385 

2.8% 



1,977 
6.4% 



452 
3.4% 



42 
17 



59 

0.8% 



277 

2.5% 



65 

17 

5 

114 

71 

272 
3.0% 



366-730 



1 

2 

12 



15 

0.3% 



15 
45 
4 
28 
11 

103 
3.3% 



7 

9 
19 

35 

0.3% 



684 
2.2% 



264 
2.0% 



6 
0.1% 



246 
2.2% 



102 

9 

3 

63 

4 

181 
2.0% 





Total 
Disposed 




.730 


Age 


1 

3 

1 



304 

720 

2,944 

915 


34.1 
25.2 
25.9 
29.3 


5 
0.1% 


4,883 
100.0% 


27.0 


13 
4 
4 

6 
4 


514 
522 

401 

1,249 

421 


100.4 

106.6 

64.2 

72.3 

63.9 


31 
1.0% 


3,107 
100.0% 


80.5 


3 
1 
1 


3,899 
3,715 
6,152 


42.6 
47.3 
46.5 


5 

.0% 


13,766 

100.0% 


45.6 


280 
0.9% 


30,850 
100.0% 


74.2 



54 
0.4% 




0.0% 



11 
0.1% 



106 




45 





159 
1.7% 



13,472 
100.0% 



4,920 
2,459 

7,379 
100.0% 



11,199 

100.0% 



3,456 
1,311 
403 
2,971 
1,013 

9,154 
100.0% 



62.0 



30.7 
33.5 

31.6 



47.5 



85. 
37. 
71. 
75, 
54. 



71.3 



Median 
Age 



18.0 
14.0 
13.0 
15.0 

14.0 



34.5 
48.0 
45.0 
31.0 
35.0 

36.0 



24.0 
28.0 
27.0 

27.0 



34.0 



36.0 



21.0 
26.0 



22.0 



25.0 



31.0 
24.0 
22.0 
37.0 

27.0 

31.0 



209 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 









■ v^v.. u . ■r«t r «« 








Total 


Mean 


M t diiin 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age 


Age 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


631 


30 


47 


8 


5 


1 


722 


50.5 


36.0 


Clay 


193 


8 


14 


2 


1 





218 


31.9 


14.0 


Graham 


328 


15 


11 


7 


3 





364 


43.5 


25.0 


Hayvood 


1,838 


57 


64 


27 


5 


9 


2,000 


37.7 


20.0 


Jackson 


590 


13 


12 


13 


19 





64 7 


45.7 


25.0 


Macon 


607 


25 


14 


9 


2 


75 


732 


200.8 


28.0 


Swain 


373 


33 


26 


4 


1 





437 


47.0 


37.0 


District Tota! 


Ls 4,560 


181 


188 


70 


36 


85 


5,120 


64.8 


25.0 


1 of Total 


89.1% 


3.5% 


3.7% 


1.4% 


0.7% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


346,161 


18,780 


17,182 


14,396 


4,472 


1,283 


402,274 


51.7 


27.0 


X of Total 


86.1% 


4.7% 


4.3% 


3.6% 


1.1% 


0.3% 


100.0% 







210 



RANKINGS FOR THE 34 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Judicial 
Division 



Judicial 
District 



Civil 



Superior Court 



Criminal 



Felonies Misdemeanors 



District Court 



General Civil Criminal 
Domestic and Magistrate Non-Motor 
Relations Anneaic Vehicle 



Appeals 



II 



III 



IV 



9 
10 



11 

12 

13 

14 

15 A 

15 B 

16 



17 A 
17 B 
18 

19 A 
19 B 
20 
21 
22 
23 



24 
25 
26 

27 A 
27 B 
28 
29 
30 



22 


25 


16 


24 


29 


14 


21 


12 


12 


13 


28 


3 


20 


L7 


7 


34 


2 


25 


26 


5 


3 


33 


32 


10 


28 


18 


14 


30 


17 


15 


18 


7 


13 


2 


13 


1 


15 


8 


15 


7 


5 


24 


14 


22 


18 


14 


11 


19 


27 


27 


28 


11 


20 


5 


17 


34 


5 


28 


12 


33 


3 


1 


4 


10 


1 


9 


31 


9 


10 


31 


25 


27 


34 


26 


20 


19 


31 


16 


19 


28 


30 


32 


33 


31 


33 


16 


29 


1 


6 


4 


6 


15 


11 


21 


15 


21 


30 


19 


32 


4 


7 


2 


7 


2 


8 


9 


16 


7 


1 


6 


2 


12 


8 


17 


23 


24 


26 


27 


24 


34 


12 


11 


25 


15 


27 


6 


24 


21 


22 


8 


10 


18 


25 


10 


9 


26 


34 


8 


2 


4 


I 


18 


19 


23 


9 


30 


23 


16 


14 


30 


4 


23 


17 


5 


3 


11 


16 


14 


34 


25 


23 


20 


11 


32 


3L 


20 


9 


22 


13 


20 


27 


6 


22 


32 


8 


3 


19 


22 


18 


29 


10 


31 


21 


3 


4 


12 


5 


13 


6 


17 


21 


13 


32 


29 


24 


23 


30 


28 


29 


33 


33 


29 


26 


26 



-Total Caseload = Cases pending on July 1, 1984 + new cases filed during the 1984-85 year. A rank 
of 1 indicates the highest percentage of total caseload disposed; a rank of 34 indicates the lowest 
percentage of total caseload disposed. 



211 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 

PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July I, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Judicial 
District 







Superior Court 






District Court 








Criminal 


1 




General Civil 


Criminal 




Civil 






Domestic 


and Magistrate 










Non-Motor 


Dounty 




Felonies Mis 


demeanors 


Relations 


Appeals 


Veh icle 


Camden 


53 


30 


76 


1 


100 


6 


Chowan 


15 


93 


28 


53 


69 


17 


Currituck 


83 


78 


54 


92 


82 


64 


Dare 


60 


62 


67 


57 


87 


77 


Gates 


95 


89 


16 


89 


26 


14 


Pasquotank 


56 


59 


35 


46 


70 


13 


Perquimans 


28 


73 


58 


96 


99 


9 


Beaufort 


44 


60 


48 


47 


8 3 


8 


Hyde 


98 


95 


82 


74 


95 


41 


Martin 


55 


10 


3 


32 


86 


81 


Tyrrell 


58 


17 


69 


67 


48 


4 


Washington 


45 


12 


44 


2 


65 


5 


Carteret 


43 


87 


64 


100 


5 


83 


Craven 


40 


55 


19 


97 


12 


63 


Pamlico 


57 


99 


2 


86 


4 


58 


Pitt 


61 


26 


26 


98 


15 


79 


Duplin 


76 


13 


4 


59 


59 


L5 


Jones 


L00 


2 


30 


84 


93 


40 


Onslow 


77 


34 


24 


99 


96 


23 


Sampson 


32 


11 


1 


34 


25 


56 


New Hanover 


73 


50 


42 


87 


3b 


49 


Pender 


91 


19 


53 


77 


73 


65 


Bertie 


50 


28 


31 


4 


13 


1 


Halifax 


65 


16 


47 


17 


46 


2b 


Hertford 


19 


54 


38 


8 


18 


10 


Northampton 


63 


9 


37 


9 


34 


20 


Edgecombe 


31 


33 


1 3 


25 


3 


47 


Nash 


42 


14 


45 


18 


30 


53 


Wilson 


46 


38 


77 


42 


32 


96 


Greene 


2 


5 


10 


58 


61 


45 


Lenoir 


37 


44 


40 


44 


35 


48 


Wayne 


52 


77 


63 


33 


28 


72 


Franklin 


75 


27 


19 


43 


45 


12 


Granville 


84 


88 


66 


66 


40 


29 


Person 


35 


90 


94 


5 


10 


43 


Vance 


72 


70 


86 


13 


80 


33 


Warren 


92 


61 


72 


79 


52 


11 



10 



Wake 



47 



84 



22 



83 



31 



95 



il 



L2 



Harnett 


18 


8 


50 


28 


20 


37 


Johnston 


10 


3 


8 


29 


1 


28 


[,!.->; 


17 


4 


11 


3 b 


2 


19 


Cumberland 


80 


32 


36 


90 


71 


86 


Hoke 


41 


6 


39 


63 


51 


35 



•Total caseload = Cases pending on July 1, 1984 + new cases filed during the 1984-85 year. A rank of 
indicates the highest percentage of total caseload disposed; a rank of 100 indicates the lowest 
percentage of total caseload disposed. 



212 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 



Judicial 
District 



County 



Civil 



Superior Court 



Criminal 



District Court 



General Civil Criminal 



Domestic and Magistrate Non-Motor 

Felonies Misdemeanors Relations i ■ \i u- i 

Keidiions Appeals Vehicle 



13 



Bladen 


79 


57 


59 


3 


37 


59 


Brunswick 


93 


85 


91 


80 


91 


73 


Columbus 


88 


41 


32 


48 


88 


21 



14 



Durham 



48 



74 



87 



93 



89 



93 



15 A 



15 B 



16 



17 A 



17 B 



18 



19 A 



19 B 



20 



Alamance 


82 


45 


85 


7 


22 


22 


Chatham 


6 


37 


21 


72 


54 


76 


Orange 


27 


49 


46 


50 


27 


62 


Robeson 


78 


31 


61 


12 


16 


16 


Scotland 


86 


92 


95 


20 


33 


30 


Caswell 


81 


1 


9 


56 


75 


7 


Rockingham 


14 


15 


34 


26 


29 


38 


Stokes 


1 


29 


14 


37 


66 


82 


Surry 


5 


22 


7 


31 


11 


50 


Guilford 


64 


67 


68 


73 


64 


99 


Cabarrus 


26 


40 


75 


38 


58 


24 


Rowan 


30 


23 


57 


40 


90 


25 


Montgomery 


66 


52 


73 


75 


60 


60 


Randolph 


70 


56 


49 


22 


8 


54 


Anson 


49 


18 


27 


27 


81 


36 


Moore 


96 


36 


17 


88 


98 


32 


Richmond 


62 


65 


62 


82 


97 


3 


Stanly 


36 


39 


12 


71 


74 


51 


Union 


68 


7 


23 


62 


78 


42 



21 



Forsyth 



11 



21 



49 



47 



71 



22 



23 



Alexander 


22 


91 


20 


23 


14 


66 


Davidson 


38 


79 


43 


52 


44 


100 


Davie 


9 


47 


74 


35 


38 


39 


Iredell 


20 


76 


84 


41 


19 


67 


Alleghany 


7 


46 


60 


21 


68 


2 


Ashe 


3 


25 


71 


16 


56 


31 


Wilkes 


29 


64 


33 


10 


6 


44 


Yadkin 


4 


69 


80 


19 


43 


27 



♦Total caseload = Cases pending on July 1, 1984 + new cases filed during the 1984-85 year. A rank of 1 
indicates the highest percentage of total caseload disposed; a rank of 100 indicates the lowest 
percentage of total caseload disposed. 



213 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985 









Superior Court 






District Court 




Judicial 


Civil 


Criminal 


Domestic 


General Civil 


Criminal 








and Magistrate 


Non-Motor 


District 


County 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 


Relations 


Appeals 


Vehicle 


:* 


Avery 


8 


42 


83 


78 


67 


70 




Madison 


97 


66 


97 


68 


7 


69 




Mitchell 


59 


75 


99 


81 


77 


85 




Watauga 


21 


35 


90 


69 


49 


55 




Yancey 


13 


51 


5 


15 


57 


61 


25 


Burke 


25 


86 


92 


64 


S3 


57 




Caldwell 


34 


72 


89 


70 


9 


75 




Catawba 


23 


.82 


78 


39 


23 


74 


26 


Mecklenburg 


39 


53 


79 


24 


55 


94 


27 A 


Gaston 


24 


20 


52 


60 


42 


90 


27 B 


Cleveland 


33 


81 


56 


14 


17 


18 




Lincoln 


12 


63 


55 


6 


21 


68 


28 


Buncombe 


lb 


43 


25 


45 


50 


34 


29 


Henderson 


89 


48 


65 


54 


79 


87 




McDowell 


69 


58 


15 


30 


85 


52 




Polk 


67 


98 


98 


11 


41 


89 




Rutherford 


87 


80 


70 


76 


72 


91 




Transylvania 


74 


94 


51 


94 


94 


80 


30 


Cherokee 


94 


83 


93 


SI 


39 


88 




Clay 


54 


100 


41 


55 


6} 


84 




Graham 


99 


97 


96 


65 


24 


97 




Haywood 


71 


68 


81 


95 


62 


46 




Jackson 


51 


24 


18 


61 


76 


78 




Macon 


85 


71 


88 


91 


H4 


92 




Swain 


90 


96 


100 


85 


92 


98 



*Total caseload = Cases pending on July 1, 1984 + new cases filed during the 1984-85 year. A rank of 1 
indicates the highest percentage of total caseload disposed; a rank of 100 indicates the lowest 
percentage of total caseload disposed. 



214 



STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 
3 3091 00748 2714